\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Artez Brewer\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-04\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2035\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nARTEZ BREWER,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\n No. 2:16-cr-00084-JVB-JEM-1 — Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Artez Brewer and his girlfriend,\nRobin Pawlak, traveled the country robbing banks, à la Bon-\nnie and Clyde. Agents today, however, have investigative\ntools that their Great Depression predecessors lacked. With a\nwarrant for real-time, Global-Positioning-System (GPS) vehi-\ncle monitoring, a task force tracked Brewer’s car to Califor-\nnia where he and Pawlak committed another robbery. Brew-\ner was arrested and essentially confessed to the crime spree.\n\f2 No. 18-2035\n\nThe government charged him with three counts of bank rob-\nbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and a jury convicted him on each\ncount.\n Brewer appeals. He argues that the government violated\nthe Fourth Amendment by tracking him to California when\nthe warrant only permitted monitoring in Indiana. But the\nin-state limitation did not reflect a probable-cause finding or\na particularity requirement, and the Fourth Amendment is\nunconcerned with state borders. Brewer also argues that the\ndistrict court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of\nunindicted robberies. Yet that other-act evidence was direct-\nly probative of Brewer’s identity, modus operandi, and in-\ntent, and it therefore fell within the bounds of Federal Rule\nof Evidence 404(b)(2). We affirm.\n I. Background\n Five bank robberies, committed in three states over the\ncourse of about six weeks, led to Artez Brewer’s arrest and\nprosecution.\n The first robbery happened on April 28, 2016. The day\nbefore, a young man entered Centier Bank in Griffith, Indi-\nana, and made an odd request: he asked for change in two-\ndollar bills. The next day, a woman walked into the bank\nwearing a jogging suit, gloves, and a mask while carrying a\nyard-long wooden stick, a black bag, and a note. She put the\nstick in between the bank’s entrance doors, approached the\nteller counter, and held up the note, which read, “All money\nin drawer, no bait.” She received $162, exited the bank, and\nran into the alley. Security footage showed a dark Chevrolet\nImpala fleeing the scene.\n\fNo. 18-2035 3\n\n The day after the first robbery, on April 29, 2016, a young\nman walked into State Bank & Trust in Perrysburg, Ohio. He\nlingered, waited in line for a couple of minutes, pulled out\nhis cell phone, and left without being assisted. The man was\nthen seen loitering across the street from the bank. After re-\nlieving himself on a nearby garbage bin, the man got back\ninto his car—a black sedan—where he sat facing the bank. A\nbit later, a woman entered the bank dressed head to toe in\ndark clothing, carrying a stick, a black bag, and a note. The\nwoman dropped the stick at the bank’s entrance doors, ap-\nproached the teller counter, and handed up a note demand-\ning cash. She left with over $1,000.\n On the morning of May 6, 2016, a young man entered the\nMainSource Bank in Crown Point, Indiana. He approached\nthe teller and made a request she thought odd: change in\ntwo-dollar bills. That afternoon, a beige Toyota sedan pulled\nup near the bank. A woman got out, wearing all black and\ncarrying a long stick, a purple and black bag, and a note. She\nput the stick at the front doors, reached the teller desk, and\nheld up a note demanding money. She received all the mon-\ney in the teller’s top drawer, about $1,700. She fled, got back\ninto the Toyota, and took off.\n About three weeks later, in the late afternoon of May 26,\n2016, a young man walked into Horizon Bank in Whiting,\nIndiana. He approached the teller desk and requested\nchange in one-dollar gold coins, which the teller found unu-\nsual. The next morning, on May 27, a Toyota Corolla pulled\nup to an auto-shop lot next to the bank. A woman dressed in\ndark clothing entered the bank, carrying a bag and a note.\nWithout saying a word, she approached the teller desk and\nheld up the note demanding money. She made off with a lit-\n\f4 No. 18-2035\n\ntle more than $6,000 before jumping into the Toyota. The\nrobber left behind a stick wedged between the doors.\n These (and other) heists drew the attention of an FBI task\nforce, which pinned Brewer as the young man present at the\nbanks just before the robberies. It conducted surveillance\nand gathered that Brewer lived with a woman, Robin Paw-\nlak, in Gary, Indiana. Officers observed a Toyota matching\nthe one from the robberies parked outside their residence,\nand they later discovered that Brewer sometimes drove an-\nother car—a silver Volvo. A task-force officer sought a war-\nrant from a state-court magistrate to monitor the Volvo with\nGPS tracking. The officer’s supporting affidavit referenced\neleven bank robberies, in Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. The\nmagistrate issued the warrant, which permitted the use of a\n“tracking device … in any public or private area in any ju-\nrisdiction, within the State of Indiana, for a period of 45 days.”\nThe in-state limitation was, apparently, an anomaly. The task\nforce had obtained multiple GPS vehicle-monitoring war-\nrants during the investigation from the same magistrate,\nnone of which included the limitation.\n The task force quickly installed the GPS tracker, con-\nsistent with the warrant’s terms. A few days later, on June 7,\n2016, a task-force officer noticed that the Volvo was on the\nmove heading west. He monitored the car as it left Indiana\nand traveled through Illinois and continued westward until\nit arrived in Los Angeles, California. The officer was una-\nware that the warrant limited the monitoring to Indiana, and\nhe failed to consult it while tracking the car. Once in L.A.,\nthe officer noticed that the Volvo was circling a bank.\n The officer called the FBI’s bank-robbery coordinator in\nL.A. to give him the heads-up about Brewer’s presence near\n\fNo. 18-2035 5\n\nBanner Bank. On the morning of June 10, 2016, officers ob-\nserved Brewer and Pawlak in the Volvo near the bank. Brew-\ner got out of the car, walked around the bank for about thirty\nminutes, occasionally staring through its large windows.\nThat afternoon, the Volvo again approached the bank. A\nwoman got out of the car, dressed in black and carrying a\nstick. She dropped the stick at the door, approached the tell-\ners, and held up a note, which read, “ALL the money No\ncops No DYE OR your dead.” She received about $1,000 in\ncash, and then ran out of the bank and into the Volvo. Offic-\ners stopped the car, arrested Brewer and Pawlak, and found\na bag of cash.\n Agents questioned Brewer at the stationhouse. They told\nhim that he was seen at Horizon Bank in Indiana just before\nit was robbed, but Brewer claimed to be a coin collector.\nWhen an agent pressed, however, and asked whether any-\none else was involved in the robberies, Brewer said:\n I tell you what, I can tell you, I told you about this\n shit, I didn’t come up with it by my damn self, I can\n tell you that shit right now but like, ya know. I was\n not uh—I was not uh—It was like a spur of the\n moment shit like fuck ya know….\n\nAgents later searched Brewer’s residence. They found car\ntitles to an Impala and a Corolla. They also found clothes\nmatching those worn by the young man who had been pre-\nsent before many of the robberies.\n A grand jury returned an indictment against Brewer\ncharging him with three counts of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.\n§ 2113(a), for each of the three Indiana robberies. After\nBrewer lost a motion to suppress regarding, in part, the\ntracking of his Volvo outside of Indiana, he went to trial. At\n\f6 No. 18-2035\n\ntrial, and over Brewer’s objection, the government presented\nevidence of the Ohio and California robberies pursuant to\nRule 404(b). Eyewitness testimony identified Brewer as the\nyoung man present before many of the robberies, and sur-\nveillance footage showed the same. The government also\npresented a recording of Brewer’s post-arrest statements.\n The jury convicted Brewer on all three counts, and the\ndistrict court sentenced him to 137 months in prison. He had\nalready been convicted in the Central District of California\nfor the L.A. robbery, and sentenced to 125 months in prison\nfor that crime. The net effect of the district court’s sentence\nbelow was therefore an additional twelve months in custody.\nBrewer appealed.\n II. Discussion\n Brewer offers three reasons for a new trial: (1) the district\ncourt should have excluded certain evidence under the\nFourth Amendment; (2) the district court erred in admitting\nevidence of the unindicted robberies under Rule 404(b); and\n(3) the government used surveillance-footage evidence that\nhad questionable authenticity under Rule 901. We address\nthese points in turn and conclude that none merits reversal.\nA. The Fourth Amendment and the Tracking Warrant\n GPS vehicle monitoring generally requires a warrant,\nUnited States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404 (2012), and the gov-\nernment obtained one here. Brewer argues that by not abid-\ning by the in-state limitation set forth in the warrant the gov-\nernment effectively conducted a warrantless search, so the\nevidence of the California robbery and his confession were\nfruits of the poisonous tree. See Wong Sun v. United States,\n\fNo. 18-2035 7\n\n371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963). Two principles of the Fourth\nAmendment lead us to disagree.\n The first is that violating a search warrant is not the same\nas violating the Fourth Amendment. We know from as far\nback as Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196 (1927), that\nofficers generally cannot search more than the particular\nplaces or things described in the warrant, and that they vio-\nlate the Fourth Amendment if they do. See also Horton v. Cali-\nfornia, 496 U.S. 128, 140 (1990); United States v. Mann, 592 F.3d\n779, 782 (7th Cir. 2010). That rule makes sense: the Fourth\nAmendment entrusts judges, not law enforcement, to deter-\nmine the particular places and things that probable cause\njustifies searching and seizing. But not everything in a war-\nrant is so inviolable. In Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385,\n395–96 (1997), for example, the Supreme Court held that a\nno-knock search was reasonable even though the warrant\nexpressly declined to authorize no-knock entry. Courts, simi-\nlarly, have held that reasonable noncompliance with a war-\nrant’s time limitations does not offend the Fourth Amend-\nment. See, e.g., United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078, 1097\n(10th Cir. 2009); United States v. Gerber, 994 F.2d 1556, 1558–59\n(11th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Martin, 399 F.3d 879,\n881 (7th Cir. 2005). This, too, makes sense: while the Fourth\nAmendment entrusts judges to authorize the particular plac-\nes or things to be searched, it does not require judges to con-\nstrain officers with other “unenumerated” particularities. See\nUnited States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 97–98 (2006); Dalia v.\nUnited States, 441 U.S. 238, 255–58 (1979); see also United States\nv. Patrick, 842 F.3d 540, 544 (7th Cir. 2016); Shell v. United\nStates, 448 F.3d 951, 957 (7th Cir. 2006).\n\f8 No. 18-2035\n\n The second Fourth Amendment principle is similar. Like\ncertain warrant terms, state law does not by proxy heighten\nthe Fourth Amendment’s protections. See Virginia v. Moore,\n553 U.S. 164, 168–73 (2008); California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S.\n35, 43–44 (1988). If, for example, law enforcement executes a\nstate-issued warrant beyond the limits of state law, the\nsearch may nevertheless comply with the Fourth Amend-\nment. See United States v. Gilbert, 942 F.2d 1537, 1541–1542\n(11th Cir. 1991). We recognized as much in United States v.\nCastetter, 865 F.3d 977, 978–79 (7th Cir. 2017), where we put it\nsimply: “the Fourth Amendment does not concern state bor-\nders.”\n Other courts have applied these Fourth Amendment\nprinciples to cases like this one. In United States v. Faulkner,\n826 F.3d 1139 (8th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2092\n(2017), for example, the Eighth Circuit held that the installa-\ntion of a GPS tracker outside of the county where the war-\nrant authorized the installation to occur did not implicate the\nFourth Amendment. That the installation violated the war-\nrant and state law was irrelevant, according to Faulkner, be-\ncause the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of probable\ncause and particularity were satisfied. 826 F.3d at 1145–46.\nEven more on point is United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347\n(11th Cir. 2004) (Cudahy, J., sitting by designation). In Simms,\nthe Eleventh Circuit held that the GPS tracking of a vehicle\ninto Alabama, even though the authorizing court order only\nallowed tracking in Texas, did not violate the Fourth\nAmendment. The Fourth Amendment’s requirements were\nmet, and the warrant’s in-state limitation was, at most, a\nstate-law problem. Simms, 385 F.3d at 1355–56.\n\fNo. 18-2035 9\n\n We hold the same. Upon a good-faith affidavit, the war-\nrant to track Brewer’s car issued from (1) an independent\nmagistrate, (2) based on probable cause, (3) with a particular\ndescription of the place or thing (the Volvo) to be searched.\nBrewer therefore received all he was entitled to under the\nFourth Amendment. E.g., Dalia, 441 U.S. at 255; Archer v.\nChisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 614 (7th Cir. 2017).\n Brewer nevertheless submits that the task force should\nhave obeyed the in-state limitation. Yet he does not argue\nthat it reflected a constitutional requirement—that is, a\nprobable-cause determination or a description of the particu-\nlar search authorized. Cf. Horton, 496 U.S. at 140. For good\nreason: Judges must describe the specific person, phone, or\nvehicle to be tracked to satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s par-\nticularity requirement. They need not specify (or limit) the\ntracking to a geographic location. United States v. Sanchez-\nJara, 889 F.3d 418, 421 (7th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct.\n282 (2018); Wayne R. LaFave, 2 SEARCH & SEIZURE: A\nTREATISE ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT § 4.5(e) (5th ed. 2018).\nNor was there any reason to do so here. The affidavit sup-\nporting the warrant in this case described a multistate bank-\nrobbery spree, and we do not see how such evidence could\njustify monitoring only within Indiana. Brewer may have\nhad a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his\nwhereabouts, see Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206,\n2215–17 (2018), but that interest was no greater on Indiana\nroads than it was on Illinois or California roads.\n\f10 No. 18-2035\n\n What we are left with, then, is the task force’s noncompli-\nance with a state-based, ancillary restriction in the warrant.1\nThe Fourth Amendment gives no remedy for that.\nB. Rule 404(b) and the Unindicted Robberies\n Brewer also submits that the district court erred in admit-\nting evidence of the unindicted robberies in Ohio and Cali-\nfornia under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). We review\nRule 404(b) decisions, like most evidentiary decisions, for an\nabuse of discretion. United States v. Norweathers, 895 F.3d 485,\n490 (7th Cir. 2018).\n Rule 404(b)(1) bars evidence of uncharged misdeeds to\nprove that the defendant had a propensity for committing\ncrime. Rule 404(b)(2), on the other hand, permits the intro-\nduction of such evidence for other purposes, including to\nprove identity, modus operandi, or intent. Fed. R. Evid.\n404(b)(2); United States v. Carson, 870 F.3d 584, 599 (7th Cir.\n2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2011 (2018). In United States v.\nGomez, 763 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc), we set the\nroadmap for determining which camp a particular piece of\nother-act evidence falls into. Per Gomez, after a Rule 404(b)\nobjection, the proponent of the other-act evidence must\ndemonstrate that the evidence is relevant to a legitimate\npurpose “through a chain of reasoning that does not rely on\nthe forbidden inference that the person has a certain charac-\n\n 1We do not know for certain why the warrant included the in-state\nlimitation. Perhaps there were state-law reasons, although neither party\nhas pointed to any, or perhaps, as counsel for the government suggested\nat oral argument, the limitation was a vestige from some stock template.\nThe answer is unimportant. On this record, we can rule out the only rea-\nsons that would matter—a probable-cause finding or a particularity re-\nquirement.\n\fNo. 18-2035 11\n\nter and acted in accordance with that character on the occa-\nsion charged in the case.” 763 F.3d at 860. If the proponent\ndoes so, the district court must then use Rule 403 to deter-\nmine “whether the probative value of the other-act evidence\nis substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice,”\ntaking into account “the extent to which the non-propensity\nfact for which the evidence is offered actually is at issue in\nthe case.” Id.; see also United States v. Thomas, 897 F.3d 807,\n813 (7th Cir. 2018).\n The district court followed course in admitting evidence\nof the Ohio and California robberies. The government of-\nfered that other-act evidence to prove identity through mo-\ndus operandi and to show Brewer’s intent. See Gomez, 763\nF.3d at 864. It supplied propensity-free reasoning for those\npurposes, too. That Brewer lingered around banks in Ohio\nand California just before they were robbed by a person\nclothed head to toe, who used a stick and a give-me-the-cash\nnote, makes it more likely that he was the individual record-\ned at the Indiana banks just before they were robbed by a\nperson who dressed similarly and used similar methods.\nThat is so not because Brewer has a propensity for commit-\nting crimes, or even bank robberies, but because he and his\npartner had established an idiosyncratic way of doing so. See\nUnited States v. Price, 516 F.3d 597, 603–04 (7th Cir. 2008);\nUnited States v. Smith, 103 F.3d 600, 603 (7th Cir. 1996).\n Urging a different conclusion, Brewer points out dissimi-\nlarities among the robberies. In California, for example, the\nrobber dropped the stick at the door, rather than jamming it\nin between the doors. And in neither Ohio nor California did\nhe make a strange change request, as he did before the Indi-\nana robberies. Our cases, however, have considered modus\n\f12 No. 18-2035\n\noperandi to mean a “distinctive”—not identical—“method\nof operation.” Carson, 870 F.3d at 599; see also, e.g., United\nStates v. Robinson, 161 F.3d 463, 468–69 (7th Cir. 1998); United\nStates v. Hudson, 884 F.2d 1016, 1021 (7th Cir. 1989). Brewer\nidentifies slightly different tactics, but those differences do\nnot undermine the distinct resemblance among the rob-\nberies.\n The district court also properly weighed the evidence\nunder Rule 403, as Gomez requires. Brewer offered two lines\nof defense at trial—that he was not the person identified be-\nfore the Indiana robberies, and that, even if he was, he was\nthere for the innocent purpose of obtaining gold coins and\ntwo-dollar bills. He repeatedly cross-examined eyewitnesses\non these topics and made the arguments in closing. Brewer’s\nidentity and intent were therefore central to the case. Gomez,\n763 F.3d at 857, 860; cf. United States v. Miller, 673 F.3d 688,\n697 (7th Cir. 2012). For reasons we just explained, the other-\nact evidence was probative of his identity as the person pre-\nsent at the Indiana banks. It was equally probative in show-\ning that he was there for bank-casing purposes, not numis-\nmatic ones. The evidence of the Ohio and California rob-\nberies was of course prejudicial—all other-act evidence is—\nbut given that Brewer put his identity and intent squarely at\nissue, it was not unfairly so. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.\n Brewer takes an additional issue with the evidence of the\nOhio robbery, arguing that there was not enough proof tying\nhim to it. There was plenty. A State Bank & Trust teller au-\nthenticated surveillance footage (as we discuss below) that\ndepicted a man resembling Brewer. What is more, a man\nwith his appearance, wearing clothes matching what the\nman who lingered in the bank wore, was seen loitering\n\fNo. 18-2035 13\n\nacross the street for so long that he needed to relieve his\nbladder next to his car, a car which matched a title found in\nBrewer’s home.\n Brewer also makes a passing challenge to the jury in-\nstructions, but we see no problem there either. The district\ncourt twice instructed the jury to consider the evidence of\nthe Ohio and California robberies only if it first found that\nBrewer likely participated in them. See Pattern Criminal Jury\nInstructions of the Seventh Circuit 3.11 (2012 ed.). The court\nfurther made clear that the jury could only use the evidence\nto help it decide “the defendant’s motive, intent, knowledge\nand modus operandi during” the charged robberies—\nprecisely as Rule 404(b)(2) allows.\n On the whole, the district court showed sensitivity to\nRule 404(b)’s pitfalls throughout the prosecution. It excluded\nevidence of Brewer’s conviction for the California robbery. It\ndid the same for several arrest photos of Brewer and Pawlak.\nIn admitting the other-act evidence that it did, the district\nidentified the propensity-free chain of reasoning and careful-\nly performed the Rule 403 balancing. There was no abuse of\ndiscretion.\nC. Rule 901 and Footage of the Ohio Robbery\n Brewer’s third and final challenge concerns the govern-\nment’s evidence of the Ohio robbery. He contends that the\ngovernment did not properly authenticate surveillance foot-\nage of his presence at State Bank & Trust a few hours before\nthe robbery. We review the district court’s contrary decision\nfor an abuse of discretion. See Mathin v. Kerry, 782 F.3d 804,\n812 (7th Cir. 2015).\n\f14 No. 18-2035\n\n A party seeking to admit evidence must first establish a\nfoundation for its authenticity. United States v. Fluker, 698\nF.3d 988, 999 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Emerson, 501 F.3d\n804, 813 (7th Cir. 2007). Federal Rule of Evidence 901 states\nthat “[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identi-\nfying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evi-\ndence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what\nthe proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Rule 901\ndoes not expressly describe how videotape evidence may be\nauthenticated, but we have held that the government can au-\nthenticate a recording “by offering testimony of an eyewit-\nness that the recording accurately reflects” the events as they\noccurred. United States v. Eberhart, 467 F.3d 659, 667 (7th Cir.\n2006); see also United States v. Cejas, 761 F.3d 717, 723 (7th Cir.\n2014). That is what the government did here. It called Sarah\nFelzer to testify, the teller on duty when Brewer visited State\nBank just before the robbery. She testified that the footage\n“fairly and accurately depict[ed] the events as they hap-\npened” that day.\n On cross-examination, Felzer’s recollection seemed fog-\ngier. She testified that she did not have an “independent rec-\nollection” of that day, and she seemed to suggest that she\ncould not distinguish that day from any other day that\nBrewer visited the bank. Brewer is right that this testimony\nwas inconsistent with Felzer’s direct-examination testimony.\nBut he is wrong to think it required exclusion of the footage.\nFelzer’s initial testimony was clear and sufficient under Rule\n901, see Eberhart, 467 F.3d at 667, so the district court did not\nabuse its discretion in finding that the government met its\nthreshold burden. It fell to the jury to decide “the evidence’s\ntrue authenticity and probative value.” Fluker, 698 F.3d at\n999.\n\fNo. 18-2035 15\n\n Even if it were otherwise, we would find harmless error.\nFed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). Take away the footage of Brewer at\nState Bank and the jury still heard about his confession and\nhis all-too-coincidental presence at the four other banks just\nbefore they were robbed. It heard five tellers—from the Indi-\nana robberies alone—identify Brewer. The jury also heard\nabout the compelling evidence the government recovered\nfrom Brewer and Pawlak’s home, including titles for vehicles\nthat matched the getaway cars. The government’s case\nwould not have been made significantly less persuasive ab-\nsent the State Bank footage. See, e.g., United States v. Jett, 908\nF.3d 252, 267 (7th Cir. 2018).\n III. Conclusion\n There was no Fourth Amendment violation in the task\nforce’s execution of the warrant. There was no error in the\ndistrict court’s evidentiary decisions. We AFFIRM the district\ncourt’s judgment.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Artez Brewer\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-04\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2035\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nARTEZ BREWER,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\\n No. 2:16-cr-00084-JVB-JEM-1 — Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Artez Brewer and his girlfriend,\\nRobin Pawlak, traveled the country robbing banks, à la Bon-\\nnie and Clyde. Agents today, however, have investigative\\ntools that their Great Depression predecessors lacked. With a\\nwarrant for real-time, Global-Positioning-System (GPS) vehi-\\ncle monitoring, a task force tracked Brewer’s car to Califor-\\nnia where he and Pawlak committed another robbery. Brew-\\ner was arrested and essentially confessed to the crime spree.\\n\\f2 No. 18-2035\\n\\nThe government charged him with three counts of bank rob-\\nbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and a jury convicted him on each\\ncount.\\n Brewer appeals. He argues that the government violated\\nthe Fourth Amendment by tracking him to California when\\nthe warrant only permitted monitoring in Indiana. But the\\nin-state limitation did not reflect a probable-cause finding or\\na particularity requirement, and the Fourth Amendment is\\nunconcerned with state borders. Brewer also argues that the\\ndistrict court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of\\nunindicted robberies. Yet that other-act evidence was direct-\\nly probative of Brewer’s identity, modus operandi, and in-\\ntent, and it therefore fell within the bounds of Federal Rule\\nof Evidence 404(b)(2). We affirm.\\n I. Background\\n Five bank robberies, committed in three states over the\\ncourse of about six weeks, led to Artez Brewer’s arrest and\\nprosecution.\\n The first robbery happened on April 28, 2016. The day\\nbefore, a young man entered Centier Bank in Griffith, Indi-\\nana, and made an odd request: he asked for change in two-\\ndollar bills. The next day, a woman walked into the bank\\nwearing a jogging suit, gloves, and a mask while carrying a\\nyard-long wooden stick, a black bag, and a note. She put the\\nstick in between the bank’s entrance doors, approached the\\nteller counter, and held up the note, which read, “All money\\nin drawer, no bait.” She received $162, exited the bank, and\\nran into the alley. Security footage showed a dark Chevrolet\\nImpala fleeing the scene.\\n\\fNo. 18-2035 3\\n\\n The day after the first robbery, on April 29, 2016, a young\\nman walked into State Bank & Trust in Perrysburg, Ohio. He\\nlingered, waited in line for a couple of minutes, pulled out\\nhis cell phone, and left without being assisted. The man was\\nthen seen loitering across the street from the bank. After re-\\nlieving himself on a nearby garbage bin, the man got back\\ninto his car—a black sedan—where he sat facing the bank. A\\nbit later, a woman entered the bank dressed head to toe in\\ndark clothing, carrying a stick, a black bag, and a note. The\\nwoman dropped the stick at the bank’s entrance doors, ap-\\nproached the teller counter, and handed up a note demand-\\ning cash. She left with over $1,000.\\n On the morning of May 6, 2016, a young man entered the\\nMainSource Bank in Crown Point, Indiana. He approached\\nthe teller and made a request she thought odd: change in\\ntwo-dollar bills. That afternoon, a beige Toyota sedan pulled\\nup near the bank. A woman got out, wearing all black and\\ncarrying a long stick, a purple and black bag, and a note. She\\nput the stick at the front doors, reached the teller desk, and\\nheld up a note demanding money. She received all the mon-\\ney in the teller’s top drawer, about $1,700. She fled, got back\\ninto the Toyota, and took off.\\n About three weeks later, in the late afternoon of May 26,\\n2016, a young man walked into Horizon Bank in Whiting,\\nIndiana. He approached the teller desk and requested\\nchange in one-dollar gold coins, which the teller found unu-\\nsual. The next morning, on May 27, a Toyota Corolla pulled\\nup to an auto-shop lot next to the bank. A woman dressed in\\ndark clothing entered the bank, carrying a bag and a note.\\nWithout saying a word, she approached the teller desk and\\nheld up the note demanding money. She made off with a lit-\\n\\f4 No. 18-2035\\n\\ntle more than $6,000 before jumping into the Toyota. The\\nrobber left behind a stick wedged between the doors.\\n These (and other) heists drew the attention of an FBI task\\nforce, which pinned Brewer as the young man present at the\\nbanks just before the robberies. It conducted surveillance\\nand gathered that Brewer lived with a woman, Robin Paw-\\nlak, in Gary, Indiana. Officers observed a Toyota matching\\nthe one from the robberies parked outside their residence,\\nand they later discovered that Brewer sometimes drove an-\\nother car—a silver Volvo. A task-force officer sought a war-\\nrant from a state-court magistrate to monitor the Volvo with\\nGPS tracking. The officer’s supporting affidavit referenced\\neleven bank robberies, in Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. The\\nmagistrate issued the warrant, which permitted the use of a\\n“tracking device … in any public or private area in any ju-\\nrisdiction, within the State of Indiana, for a period of 45 days.”\\nThe in-state limitation was, apparently, an anomaly. The task\\nforce had obtained multiple GPS vehicle-monitoring war-\\nrants during the investigation from the same magistrate,\\nnone of which included the limitation.\\n The task force quickly installed the GPS tracker, con-\\nsistent with the warrant’s terms. A few days later, on June 7,\\n2016, a task-force officer noticed that the Volvo was on the\\nmove heading west. He monitored the car as it left Indiana\\nand traveled through Illinois and continued westward until\\nit arrived in Los Angeles, California. The officer was una-\\nware that the warrant limited the monitoring to Indiana, and\\nhe failed to consult it while tracking the car. Once in L.A.,\\nthe officer noticed that the Volvo was circling a bank.\\n The officer called the FBI’s bank-robbery coordinator in\\nL.A. to give him the heads-up about Brewer’s presence near\\n\\fNo. 18-2035 5\\n\\nBanner Bank. On the morning of June 10, 2016, officers ob-\\nserved Brewer and Pawlak in the Volvo near the bank. Brew-\\ner got out of the car, walked around the bank for about thirty\\nminutes, occasionally staring through its large windows.\\nThat afternoon, the Volvo again approached the bank. A\\nwoman got out of the car, dressed in black and carrying a\\nstick. She dropped the stick at the door, approached the tell-\\ners, and held up a note, which read, “ALL the money No\\ncops No DYE OR your dead.” She received about $1,000 in\\ncash, and then ran out of the bank and into the Volvo. Offic-\\ners stopped the car, arrested Brewer and Pawlak, and found\\na bag of cash.\\n Agents questioned Brewer at the stationhouse. They told\\nhim that he was seen at Horizon Bank in Indiana just before\\nit was robbed, but Brewer claimed to be a coin collector.\\nWhen an agent pressed, however, and asked whether any-\\none else was involved in the robberies, Brewer said:\\n I tell you what, I can tell you, I told you about this\\n shit, I didn’t come up with it by my damn self, I can\\n tell you that shit right now but like, ya know. I was\\n not uh—I was not uh—It was like a spur of the\\n moment shit like fuck ya know….\\n\\nAgents later searched Brewer’s residence. They found car\\ntitles to an Impala and a Corolla. They also found clothes\\nmatching those worn by the young man who had been pre-\\nsent before many of the robberies.\\n A grand jury returned an indictment against Brewer\\ncharging him with three counts of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 2113(a), for each of the three Indiana robberies. After\\nBrewer lost a motion to suppress regarding, in part, the\\ntracking of his Volvo outside of Indiana, he went to trial. At\\n\\f6 No. 18-2035\\n\\ntrial, and over Brewer’s objection, the government presented\\nevidence of the Ohio and California robberies pursuant to\\nRule 404(b). Eyewitness testimony identified Brewer as the\\nyoung man present before many of the robberies, and sur-\\nveillance footage showed the same. The government also\\npresented a recording of Brewer’s post-arrest statements.\\n The jury convicted Brewer on all three counts, and the\\ndistrict court sentenced him to 137 months in prison. He had\\nalready been convicted in the Central District of California\\nfor the L.A. robbery, and sentenced to 125 months in prison\\nfor that crime. The net effect of the district court’s sentence\\nbelow was therefore an additional twelve months in custody.\\nBrewer appealed.\\n II. Discussion\\n Brewer offers three reasons for a new trial: (1) the district\\ncourt should have excluded certain evidence under the\\nFourth Amendment; (2) the district court erred in admitting\\nevidence of the unindicted robberies under Rule 404(b); and\\n(3) the government used surveillance-footage evidence that\\nhad questionable authenticity under Rule 901. We address\\nthese points in turn and conclude that none merits reversal.\\nA. The Fourth Amendment and the Tracking Warrant\\n GPS vehicle monitoring generally requires a warrant,\\nUnited States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404 (2012), and the gov-\\nernment obtained one here. Brewer argues that by not abid-\\ning by the in-state limitation set forth in the warrant the gov-\\nernment effectively conducted a warrantless search, so the\\nevidence of the California robbery and his confession were\\nfruits of the poisonous tree. See Wong Sun v. United States,\\n\\fNo. 18-2035 7\\n\\n371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963). Two principles of the Fourth\\nAmendment lead us to disagree.\\n The first is that violating a search warrant is not the same\\nas violating the Fourth Amendment. We know from as far\\nback as Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196 (1927), that\\nofficers generally cannot search more than the particular\\nplaces or things described in the warrant, and that they vio-\\nlate the Fourth Amendment if they do. See also Horton v. Cali-\\nfornia, 496 U.S. 128, 140 (1990); United States v. Mann, 592 F.3d\\n779, 782 (7th Cir. 2010). That rule makes sense: the Fourth\\nAmendment entrusts judges, not law enforcement, to deter-\\nmine the particular places and things that probable cause\\njustifies searching and seizing. But not everything in a war-\\nrant is so inviolable. In Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385,\\n395–96 (1997), for example, the Supreme Court held that a\\nno-knock search was reasonable even though the warrant\\nexpressly declined to authorize no-knock entry. Courts, simi-\\nlarly, have held that reasonable noncompliance with a war-\\nrant’s time limitations does not offend the Fourth Amend-\\nment. See, e.g., United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078, 1097\\n(10th Cir. 2009); United States v. Gerber, 994 F.2d 1556, 1558–59\\n(11th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Martin, 399 F.3d 879,\\n881 (7th Cir. 2005). This, too, makes sense: while the Fourth\\nAmendment entrusts judges to authorize the particular plac-\\nes or things to be searched, it does not require judges to con-\\nstrain officers with other “unenumerated” particularities. See\\nUnited States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 97–98 (2006); Dalia v.\\nUnited States, 441 U.S. 238, 255–58 (1979); see also United States\\nv. Patrick, 842 F.3d 540, 544 (7th Cir. 2016); Shell v. United\\nStates, 448 F.3d 951, 957 (7th Cir. 2006).\\n\\f8 No. 18-2035\\n\\n The second Fourth Amendment principle is similar. Like\\ncertain warrant terms, state law does not by proxy heighten\\nthe Fourth Amendment’s protections. See Virginia v. Moore,\\n553 U.S. 164, 168–73 (2008); California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S.\\n35, 43–44 (1988). If, for example, law enforcement executes a\\nstate-issued warrant beyond the limits of state law, the\\nsearch may nevertheless comply with the Fourth Amend-\\nment. See United States v. Gilbert, 942 F.2d 1537, 1541–1542\\n(11th Cir. 1991). We recognized as much in United States v.\\nCastetter, 865 F.3d 977, 978–79 (7th Cir. 2017), where we put it\\nsimply: “the Fourth Amendment does not concern state bor-\\nders.”\\n Other courts have applied these Fourth Amendment\\nprinciples to cases like this one. In United States v. Faulkner,\\n826 F.3d 1139 (8th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2092\\n(2017), for example, the Eighth Circuit held that the installa-\\ntion of a GPS tracker outside of the county where the war-\\nrant authorized the installation to occur did not implicate the\\nFourth Amendment. That the installation violated the war-\\nrant and state law was irrelevant, according to Faulkner, be-\\ncause the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of probable\\ncause and particularity were satisfied. 826 F.3d at 1145–46.\\nEven more on point is United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347\\n(11th Cir. 2004) (Cudahy, J., sitting by designation). In Simms,\\nthe Eleventh Circuit held that the GPS tracking of a vehicle\\ninto Alabama, even though the authorizing court order only\\nallowed tracking in Texas, did not violate the Fourth\\nAmendment. The Fourth Amendment’s requirements were\\nmet, and the warrant’s in-state limitation was, at most, a\\nstate-law problem. Simms, 385 F.3d at 1355–56.\\n\\fNo. 18-2035 9\\n\\n We hold the same. Upon a good-faith affidavit, the war-\\nrant to track Brewer’s car issued from (1) an independent\\nmagistrate, (2) based on probable cause, (3) with a particular\\ndescription of the place or thing (the Volvo) to be searched.\\nBrewer therefore received all he was entitled to under the\\nFourth Amendment. E.g., Dalia, 441 U.S. at 255; Archer v.\\nChisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 614 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Brewer nevertheless submits that the task force should\\nhave obeyed the in-state limitation. Yet he does not argue\\nthat it reflected a constitutional requirement—that is, a\\nprobable-cause determination or a description of the particu-\\nlar search authorized. Cf. Horton, 496 U.S. at 140. For good\\nreason: Judges must describe the specific person, phone, or\\nvehicle to be tracked to satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s par-\\nticularity requirement. They need not specify (or limit) the\\ntracking to a geographic location. United States v. Sanchez-\\nJara, 889 F.3d 418, 421 (7th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct.\\n282 (2018); Wayne R. LaFave, 2 SEARCH & SEIZURE: A\\nTREATISE ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT § 4.5(e) (5th ed. 2018).\\nNor was there any reason to do so here. The affidavit sup-\\nporting the warrant in this case described a multistate bank-\\nrobbery spree, and we do not see how such evidence could\\njustify monitoring only within Indiana. Brewer may have\\nhad a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his\\nwhereabouts, see Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206,\\n2215–17 (2018), but that interest was no greater on Indiana\\nroads than it was on Illinois or California roads.\\n\\f10 No. 18-2035\\n\\n What we are left with, then, is the task force’s noncompli-\\nance with a state-based, ancillary restriction in the warrant.1\\nThe Fourth Amendment gives no remedy for that.\\nB. Rule 404(b) and the Unindicted Robberies\\n Brewer also submits that the district court erred in admit-\\nting evidence of the unindicted robberies in Ohio and Cali-\\nfornia under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). We review\\nRule 404(b) decisions, like most evidentiary decisions, for an\\nabuse of discretion. United States v. Norweathers, 895 F.3d 485,\\n490 (7th Cir. 2018).\\n Rule 404(b)(1) bars evidence of uncharged misdeeds to\\nprove that the defendant had a propensity for committing\\ncrime. Rule 404(b)(2), on the other hand, permits the intro-\\nduction of such evidence for other purposes, including to\\nprove identity, modus operandi, or intent. Fed. R. Evid.\\n404(b)(2); United States v. Carson, 870 F.3d 584, 599 (7th Cir.\\n2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2011 (2018). In United States v.\\nGomez, 763 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc), we set the\\nroadmap for determining which camp a particular piece of\\nother-act evidence falls into. Per Gomez, after a Rule 404(b)\\nobjection, the proponent of the other-act evidence must\\ndemonstrate that the evidence is relevant to a legitimate\\npurpose “through a chain of reasoning that does not rely on\\nthe forbidden inference that the person has a certain charac-\\n\\n 1We do not know for certain why the warrant included the in-state\\nlimitation. Perhaps there were state-law reasons, although neither party\\nhas pointed to any, or perhaps, as counsel for the government suggested\\nat oral argument, the limitation was a vestige from some stock template.\\nThe answer is unimportant. On this record, we can rule out the only rea-\\nsons that would matter—a probable-cause finding or a particularity re-\\nquirement.\\n\\fNo. 18-2035 11\\n\\nter and acted in accordance with that character on the occa-\\nsion charged in the case.” 763 F.3d at 860. If the proponent\\ndoes so, the district court must then use Rule 403 to deter-\\nmine “whether the probative value of the other-act evidence\\nis substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice,”\\ntaking into account “the extent to which the non-propensity\\nfact for which the evidence is offered actually is at issue in\\nthe case.” Id.; see also United States v. Thomas, 897 F.3d 807,\\n813 (7th Cir. 2018).\\n The district court followed course in admitting evidence\\nof the Ohio and California robberies. The government of-\\nfered that other-act evidence to prove identity through mo-\\ndus operandi and to show Brewer’s intent. See Gomez, 763\\nF.3d at 864. It supplied propensity-free reasoning for those\\npurposes, too. That Brewer lingered around banks in Ohio\\nand California just before they were robbed by a person\\nclothed head to toe, who used a stick and a give-me-the-cash\\nnote, makes it more likely that he was the individual record-\\ned at the Indiana banks just before they were robbed by a\\nperson who dressed similarly and used similar methods.\\nThat is so not because Brewer has a propensity for commit-\\nting crimes, or even bank robberies, but because he and his\\npartner had established an idiosyncratic way of doing so. See\\nUnited States v. Price, 516 F.3d 597, 603–04 (7th Cir. 2008);\\nUnited States v. Smith, 103 F.3d 600, 603 (7th Cir. 1996).\\n Urging a different conclusion, Brewer points out dissimi-\\nlarities among the robberies. In California, for example, the\\nrobber dropped the stick at the door, rather than jamming it\\nin between the doors. And in neither Ohio nor California did\\nhe make a strange change request, as he did before the Indi-\\nana robberies. Our cases, however, have considered modus\\n\\f12 No. 18-2035\\n\\noperandi to mean a “distinctive”—not identical—“method\\nof operation.” Carson, 870 F.3d at 599; see also, e.g., United\\nStates v. Robinson, 161 F.3d 463, 468–69 (7th Cir. 1998); United\\nStates v. Hudson, 884 F.2d 1016, 1021 (7th Cir. 1989). Brewer\\nidentifies slightly different tactics, but those differences do\\nnot undermine the distinct resemblance among the rob-\\nberies.\\n The district court also properly weighed the evidence\\nunder Rule 403, as Gomez requires. Brewer offered two lines\\nof defense at trial—that he was not the person identified be-\\nfore the Indiana robberies, and that, even if he was, he was\\nthere for the innocent purpose of obtaining gold coins and\\ntwo-dollar bills. He repeatedly cross-examined eyewitnesses\\non these topics and made the arguments in closing. Brewer’s\\nidentity and intent were therefore central to the case. Gomez,\\n763 F.3d at 857, 860; cf. United States v. Miller, 673 F.3d 688,\\n697 (7th Cir. 2012). For reasons we just explained, the other-\\nact evidence was probative of his identity as the person pre-\\nsent at the Indiana banks. It was equally probative in show-\\ning that he was there for bank-casing purposes, not numis-\\nmatic ones. The evidence of the Ohio and California rob-\\nberies was of course prejudicial—all other-act evidence is—\\nbut given that Brewer put his identity and intent squarely at\\nissue, it was not unfairly so. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.\\n Brewer takes an additional issue with the evidence of the\\nOhio robbery, arguing that there was not enough proof tying\\nhim to it. There was plenty. A State Bank & Trust teller au-\\nthenticated surveillance footage (as we discuss below) that\\ndepicted a man resembling Brewer. What is more, a man\\nwith his appearance, wearing clothes matching what the\\nman who lingered in the bank wore, was seen loitering\\n\\fNo. 18-2035 13\\n\\nacross the street for so long that he needed to relieve his\\nbladder next to his car, a car which matched a title found in\\nBrewer’s home.\\n Brewer also makes a passing challenge to the jury in-\\nstructions, but we see no problem there either. The district\\ncourt twice instructed the jury to consider the evidence of\\nthe Ohio and California robberies only if it first found that\\nBrewer likely participated in them. See Pattern Criminal Jury\\nInstructions of the Seventh Circuit 3.11 (2012 ed.). The court\\nfurther made clear that the jury could only use the evidence\\nto help it decide “the defendant’s motive, intent, knowledge\\nand modus operandi during” the charged robberies—\\nprecisely as Rule 404(b)(2) allows.\\n On the whole, the district court showed sensitivity to\\nRule 404(b)’s pitfalls throughout the prosecution. It excluded\\nevidence of Brewer’s conviction for the California robbery. It\\ndid the same for several arrest photos of Brewer and Pawlak.\\nIn admitting the other-act evidence that it did, the district\\nidentified the propensity-free chain of reasoning and careful-\\nly performed the Rule 403 balancing. There was no abuse of\\ndiscretion.\\nC. Rule 901 and Footage of the Ohio Robbery\\n Brewer’s third and final challenge concerns the govern-\\nment’s evidence of the Ohio robbery. He contends that the\\ngovernment did not properly authenticate surveillance foot-\\nage of his presence at State Bank & Trust a few hours before\\nthe robbery. We review the district court’s contrary decision\\nfor an abuse of discretion. See Mathin v. Kerry, 782 F.3d 804,\\n812 (7th Cir. 2015).\\n\\f14 No. 18-2035\\n\\n A party seeking to admit evidence must first establish a\\nfoundation for its authenticity. United States v. Fluker, 698\\nF.3d 988, 999 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Emerson, 501 F.3d\\n804, 813 (7th Cir. 2007). Federal Rule of Evidence 901 states\\nthat “[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identi-\\nfying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evi-\\ndence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what\\nthe proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Rule 901\\ndoes not expressly describe how videotape evidence may be\\nauthenticated, but we have held that the government can au-\\nthenticate a recording “by offering testimony of an eyewit-\\nness that the recording accurately reflects” the events as they\\noccurred. United States v. Eberhart, 467 F.3d 659, 667 (7th Cir.\\n2006); see also United States v. Cejas, 761 F.3d 717, 723 (7th Cir.\\n2014). That is what the government did here. It called Sarah\\nFelzer to testify, the teller on duty when Brewer visited State\\nBank just before the robbery. She testified that the footage\\n“fairly and accurately depict[ed] the events as they hap-\\npened” that day.\\n On cross-examination, Felzer’s recollection seemed fog-\\ngier. She testified that she did not have an “independent rec-\\nollection” of that day, and she seemed to suggest that she\\ncould not distinguish that day from any other day that\\nBrewer visited the bank. Brewer is right that this testimony\\nwas inconsistent with Felzer’s direct-examination testimony.\\nBut he is wrong to think it required exclusion of the footage.\\nFelzer’s initial testimony was clear and sufficient under Rule\\n901, see Eberhart, 467 F.3d at 667, so the district court did not\\nabuse its discretion in finding that the government met its\\nthreshold burden. It fell to the jury to decide “the evidence’s\\ntrue authenticity and probative value.” Fluker, 698 F.3d at\\n999.\\n\\fNo. 18-2035 15\\n\\n Even if it were otherwise, we would find harmless error.\\nFed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). Take away the footage of Brewer at\\nState Bank and the jury still heard about his confession and\\nhis all-too-coincidental presence at the four other banks just\\nbefore they were robbed. It heard five tellers—from the Indi-\\nana robberies alone—identify Brewer. The jury also heard\\nabout the compelling evidence the government recovered\\nfrom Brewer and Pawlak’s home, including titles for vehicles\\nthat matched the getaway cars. The government’s case\\nwould not have been made significantly less persuasive ab-\\nsent the State Bank footage. See, e.g., United States v. Jett, 908\\nF.3d 252, 267 (7th Cir. 2018).\\n III. Conclusion\\n There was no Fourth Amendment violation in the task\\nforce’s execution of the warrant. There was no error in the\\ndistrict court’s evidentiary decisions. We AFFIRM the district\\ncourt’s judgment.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":659,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4587322,"string":"4,587,322"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Luis Fernandez"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-04"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3421"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17-3421\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nLUIS A. FERNANDEZ,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 2:17-cr-00052-PP-1 — Pamela Pepper, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before FLAUM, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Luis Fernandez of\\nbeing a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 922(g)(1). Fernandez appeals his conviction, contending that\\nthe district court committed three evidentiary errors that\\ndeprived him of a fair trial. We affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 17-3421\\n\\n I.\\n The charge against Fernandez arose out of a traffic stop\\nconducted by police in Franklin, Wisconsin (a Milwaukee\\nsuburb) on November 20, 2016. Fernandez was sitting in the\\nfront passenger seat of a black Chevrolet Caprice, his friend\\nAdam Voecks was driving, and Voecks’ fiancée Valerie\\nStramowski was in the back seat. Police officer Gabriel Frusti\\ninitiated the stop after observing the car move across multiple\\nlanes of traffic without signaling and quickly decelerating to a\\nhalt. (Voecks would later testify that the car’s engine had died.)\\nMoments later, officer Adam Rogge arrived on the scene in\\nresponse to Frusti’s request for backup. When Rogge ap-\\nproached the driver’s side of the vehicle to speak with Voecks\\n(Frusti was speaking with Fernandez on the passenger side), he\\nnoticed an odor of marijuana emanating from the interior of\\nthe car. Voecks was asked to step out of the car. When asked if\\nhe was armed, Voecks disclosed that he had a gun in his right\\nfront pocket; officers removed a holstered Kel Tec .380 caliber\\npistol from that pocket.\\n Ultimately all three of the occupants of the car were taken\\ninto police custody. Although Voecks had no criminal record\\nand had purchased the gun found on his person legally, he did\\nnot have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and was\\narrested on that basis. Fernandez and Stramowski were\\narrested on outstanding warrants, and Stramowski had also\\ngiven the officers a false name in an attempt to evade arrest.\\n When the interior of the car was searched, police discov-\\nered a second gun—a Springfield Armory .45 caliber pistol—in\\nthe center console between the front driver and passenger\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 3\\n\\nseats. A pat-down of Voecks’ person also produced a folding\\nknife, a crack pipe, and two bullets, one of which was a .38\\ncaliber bullet (the same caliber as the pistol found in his pocket)\\nand the second of which was a .45 caliber bullet (the same\\ncaliber as the pistol discovered in the console).\\n The occupants of the car were transported in a police van\\nto the Franklin police department for processing and question-\\ning. As Fernandez was being placed into the van, officer Adam\\nGraf overheard him call out to Voecks, “[D]on’t worry[,] it’s\\nonly a misdemeanor for you to have a gun.” R. 40 at 90; see also\\nR. 40 at 128.\\n Voecks was interviewed twice at the police station, and\\nover the course of the two interviews he gave three different\\nstatements as to who had possessed the .45 caliber pistol found\\nin the car and who had placed it in the center console. Officer\\nFrusti conducted both interviews (with officer Rogge sitting\\nin). During the first interview, Voecks claimed ownership of\\nthat gun and told Frusti that he had obtained it from a friend\\nwho had since died. Voecks was subsequently bailed out of jail\\nby his father. As he was preparing to leave the station, Ser-\\ngeant Dan Morris approached Voecks and warned him that the\\npolice would run a trace on the gun, and if they discovered\\nthat the gun had been used in any crime, “it was going to come\\nback on [him].” R. 40 at 135. Voecks at that point became\\nvisibly pale and nervous, and Morris offered him the opportu-\\nnity to be interviewed for a second time about the gun; Voecks\\naccepted the invitation. During the second interview, Voecks\\ntold Frusti that the gun was not his. At first Voecks said that he\\ndid not see who had placed it in the center console of the car,\\nalthough he suggested it was more likely that Fernandez had\\n\\f4 No. 17-3421\\n\\ndone so than Stramowski. But when he was confronted with\\ncertain inconsistencies in that new version of events, Voecks\\nultimately averred that the gun belonged to Fernandez. Voecks\\nstated that when officer Frusti had pulled up behind the car,\\nFernandez had panicked, voicing concern that he could “go\\naway for 20 years” and not be able to see his four children. At\\nFernandez’s urging, Voecks had agreed to claim possession of\\nthe gun. While Frusti was calling for backup, Fernandez had\\nplaced the gun into the center console. Voecks picked up a\\nbullet from the gun that had landed on his seat and placed it\\ninto his pocket.\\n Voecks became the key prosecution witness against\\nFernandez at trial. (No fingerprints were found on the .45\\ncaliber pistol, and the government had not had the gun tested\\nfor DNA evidence.) Voecks explained that he had first claimed\\nownership of the .45 caliber pistol in order to protect his friend,\\nFernandez, but changed his mind after being warned that he\\nwould be implicated if the police discovered that the gun had\\nbeen used in a crime. When defense counsel was cross-examin-\\ning Voecks regarding the divergent accounts he had given to\\npolice as to whom the gun belonged, the district court sus-\\ntained hearsay objections to questions as to what officer Frusti\\nhad asked of or said to Voecks during questioning. R. 40 at\\n150–51, 152, 155. Defense counsel was able to ask Voecks what\\nhe had told Frusti, but not what he was responding to. On\\ncertain points, Voecks professed an inability to recall what\\nspecifically he had said to Frusti. In particular, when defense\\ncounsel asked Voecks about his second story regarding the\\ngun, Voecks said that he lacked any recollection of telling\\nFrusti that he did not see who placed the .45 caliber pistol in\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 5\\n\\nthe center console of the car. R. 40 at 154–55. “I’m not saying I\\ndidn’t say it, I’m just saying I don’t remember saying that,”\\nVoecks testified. R. 40 at 155. But he did otherwise acknowl-\\nedge the first and third accounts he had given Frusti as to\\nwhom the gun belonged and how it had come to be in the\\ncenter console of the car.\\n When Frusti subsequently testified for the government,\\ndefense counsel attempted to cross-examine him about the\\nvarious statements Voecks had made to him during the two\\ninterrogations Frusti had conducted. But the court sustained\\nthe government’s hearsay objections to such questions. R. 40 at\\n182, 186; see also R. 40 at 220. Thus, for example, when defense\\ncounsel asked Frusti what Voecks had said during the initial\\ninterrogation, the court sustained a hearsay objection, although\\ncounsel was then able to elicit from Frusti (without objection)\\nthat Voecks’ initial account involved him having obtained the\\n.45 caliber gun from another individual. R. 40 at 182. When the\\ncross-examination turned to the second interrogation (after\\nVoecks had posted bail), defense counsel was able to elicit from\\nFrusti what he said to Voecks during that interrogation, but\\n(with one exception) not what Voecks said in response to\\nquestioning. R. 40 at 186. The defense was only able to have\\nFrusti confirm that Voecks gave inconsistent accounts with\\nrespect to the gun. R. 40 at 187–88.\\n Voecks, when he was on the witness stand, was also cross-\\nexamined regarding certain text messages he allegedly sent to\\nStramowski in the days immediately before trial. The two were\\nno longer engaged at that point, and Voecks had recently\\nbecome aware that Stramowski and Fernandez either were or\\nhad been in a relationship with one another. Voecks admitted\\n\\f6 No. 17-3421\\n\\nthat the news made him angry. R. 40 at 139. The purported\\ntexts from Voecks to Stramowski stated, among other things:\\n Have fun talking to your[ ] Boyfriend cause he’s\\n gonna do 20-life! I’m testifying, he’s f*cked. Hope\\n it’s worth it[,] look what he did. To both of us … .\\n I told u a[ ]long time ago, only one of us would\\n survive, and it wouldn’t be him! Either way he’s\\n f*cked whether it’s by my hands or the court[‘s]. …\\n Ur both gonna get urs[.]\\n I met with the usa[ ] prosecuting attorney. Luis is\\n f*cked. He done a[n]d a fed inmate for life! Keep\\n wasting ur money on him. …\\nR. 46–2 at 2–6 (sanitizing ours); see also R. 40 at 159–61.\\nStramowski had provided screen-shots of these texts to defense\\ncounsel (who in turn produced them to the government’s\\ncounsel) midway through the first day of trial, just before\\nopening statements were to commence. The government\\nobjected to any reference to the texts; but as the texts were\\nprobative of Voecks’ potential bias and motive to testify, the\\ndistrict court allowed the defense to cross-examine Voecks\\nabout the texts, as defense counsel had proposed, but indicated\\nthat the defense would not be permitted to introduce extrinsic\\nevidence of the texts. R. 40 at 36–37, 39–40, 221–22. During the\\ncross-examination of Voecks, counsel established that he had\\nsent texts to Stramowski in advance of the trial and that his cell\\nphone number was the same as the number from which the\\ntexts on Stramowski’s phone purportedly came. Counsel then\\nread several of the texts to Voecks and asked him whether he\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 7\\n\\nhad sent them to Stramowski. In each instance, Voecks\\nanswered that he did not recall sending such a text to her.\\n Stramowski subsequently testified as a defense witness. She\\nindicated that she had not seen any guns in the car on the date\\nof the traffic stop, nor had she heard any discussion between\\nVoecks and Fernandez regarding the .45 caliber weapon later\\ndiscovered in the console. She testified that Voecks owned\\nmultiple guns and at one point had possessed as many as five\\nwhen she was living with him. When defense counsel at-\\ntempted to ask her about the substance of texts she claimed to\\nhave received from Voecks in the run-up to the trial, the\\ndistrict court sustained the government’s hearsay objection.\\nR. 40 at 205. Stramowski did confirm that Voecks was upset to\\nlearn that she was in a relationship with Fernandez, and that\\nhe told her he was going to “get back at [her]” for that. R. 40 at\\n205–06.\\n At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Fernandez\\nguilty of the felon-in-possession charge; and the district court\\nlater denied his motion for a new trial. The court noted that\\ndespite the hearsay objections it had sustained when the\\ndefense had attempted to ask Voecks what officer Frusti had\\nsaid while interrogating him and to ask Frusti how Voecks had\\nresponded to Frusti’s questions, the defense had managed to\\nestablish how Voecks’ story had evolved during questioning.\\nR. 62 at 9–10. As to the texts Voecks had allegedly sent to\\nStramowski, the court pointed out that the defense had read\\nthose texts to Voecks on cross-examination, so that the jury\\nwas aware of what the texts said notwithstanding the fact that\\nthe court had not allowed the defense to present extrinsic\\nevidence of the texts. R. 62 at 16–18.\\n\\f8 No. 17-3421\\n\\n At sentencing, Judge Pepper ordered Fernandez to serve a\\nprison term of 27 months, which was at the low end of the\\nrange advised by the Sentencing Guidelines.\\n II.\\nA. Hearsay objections regarding police interrogation of Voecks\\n There is no dispute that Voecks gave Frusti contradictory\\naccounts as to whom the .45 caliber gun belonged and who had\\nplaced it in the center console of the car. As the interrogations\\nof Voecks were recorded and transcribed, the parties knew\\nexactly what Frusti had said to Voecks during the questioning\\nand what Voecks had said to Frusti in response. Frusti and\\nVoecks both testified at trial, and the defense wanted leeway\\nto question each of them about both sides of the interrogation;\\nbut as noted, when the defense attempted to ask Voecks about\\nwhat Frusti had said to him and vice-versa, the district court\\nsustained the government’s hearsay objections, essentially\\nconfining the cross-examination of each witness to his own\\nstatements.\\n Fernandez argues that the district court erred in imposing\\nthese limitations. He contends that “[t]he government’s case\\nagainst Fernandez depended entirely on the credibility of\\nAdam Voecks, … [s]o it was essential for the defense to\\nhighlight each step in Voecks’ ever-evolving story and to\\nexplain what led him to shift blame to Fernandez.” Fernandez\\nBr. 8. The district court’s hearsay rulings effectively prevented\\nthe defense from accomplishing that task, Fernandez asserts,\\nand thus denied him the ability to confront his accuser and\\npresent a full defense. It was, in his view, confusing and\\nunnecessary to restrict the cross-examination of Voecks and\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 9\\n\\nFrusti to their respective halves of the interrogations. And\\nbecause Voecks professed inability to recall certain of the\\nstatements he made during questioning, and Fernandez’s\\ncounsel was prohibited from asking Frusti to fill in those gaps,\\nthe defense was unable to establish the full content and context\\nof Voecks’ changing stories. Ultimately, in Fernandez’s view,\\nthe jury was only given the bare outlines of the inconsistent\\nstatements that Voecks gave and was kept ignorant of the\\ndetails which demonstrated how and why his accounts\\nchanged. On appeal, Fernandez suggests for the first time that\\nthe error was so serious that it deprived him of his Sixth\\nAmendment right to confront Voecks effectively.\\n We agree it was error to sustain the hearsay objections to\\nquestions aimed at eliciting what questions officer Frusti asked\\nof Voecks during the interrogations. It is common ground\\nbetween the parties that the statements Voecks made during\\ninterrogation were fair game for the impeachment of his\\ntestimony at trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A). To that end, it\\nwas entirely reasonable to question Voecks about what he had\\ntold Frusti at the police station, and the district court allowed\\nthe defense to do so. But interrogations are an inherently\\ninteractive process, and so Frusti’s half of the interrogations\\nwere material to the context of Voecks’ answers. What Frusti\\nasked of or said to Voecks during interrogation was not offered\\nfor its truth, but rather to establish what questions or state-\\nments Voecks was responding to and the effect the former had\\non Voecks as the listener. This was a legitimate non-hearsay\\npurpose aimed at providing the jury with the full context of\\nVoecks’ prior statements. See, e.g., Estate of Moreland v. Dieter,\\n395 F.3d 747, 753–54 (7th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that interroga-\\n\\f10 No. 17-3421\\n\\ntor’s questions were offered to provide context for defendant’s\\nanswers and as such were not hearsay) (citing United States v.\\nWoods, 301 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2002) (informant’s side of\\nrecorded conversation with defendant admissible to provide\\ncontext)); United States v. Gajo, 290 F.3d 922, 929–30 (7th Cir.\\n2002) (statements of non-conspirator, in recorded conversation\\nwith co-conspirator, admissible to provide context for co-\\nconspirator’s statements) (collecting cases); United States v.\\nGutierrez-Chavez, 842 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir. 1988) (co-defendant’s\\nstatements introduced not for their truth but only to show they\\nwere uttered). The judge may have been misled by the de-\\nfense’s first foray into Frusti’s side of the interrogations, which\\nasked Voecks to recount what Frusti had told him on a\\nparticular point. R. 40 at 150–51. There may well be instances\\nin which a party improperly seeks to elicit an interrogator’s\\nstatement during questioning (representing what another\\nwitness has told the authorities, for example) for its truth\\nrather than to establish the context of what the person being\\ninterrogated said next. If that were the evident aim of defense\\ncounsel’s questioning here, then we would agree that the\\ninquiries were barred by the hearsay rule. But it soon became\\nclear that Fernandez’s attorney was attempting to elicit Frusti’s\\nstatements and questions for legitimate non-hearsay purposes.\\nCounsel’s next question, for example, was what Frusti had\\nasked Voecks, and the court sustained the government’s\\nobjection to that inquiry as well. R. 40 at 151. Consequently, the\\nhearsay rule did not support the court’s decision to preclude\\nthe defense from establishing both sides of the interrogations\\nthrough Voecks himself.\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 11\\n\\n The defense had a legitimate purpose in examining Voecks\\nabout the various contradictory stories he had told to Frusti\\nabout the gun, and as part of that inquiry it was entirely proper\\nfor the defense to establish what Frusti said and asked during\\nthe interrogations in order to place Voecks’ answers in context.\\nTo the extent Frusti may have been leading or cajoling Voecks\\nto change his story, for example, Frusti’s side of the interroga-\\ntions would be relevant to the jury’s assessment of Voecks’\\ncredibility in pointing the finger at Fernandez. Insisting that\\nFernandez’s counsel instead wait to ask Frusti about his half of\\nthe conversations was at best a cumbersome alternative, and\\none that precluded the defense from eliciting what Voecks\\nunderstood Frusti to be saying to him.\\n The converse restriction the court imposed on the cross-\\nexamination of Frusti was also problematic, but less trouble-\\nsome on the record as it stands. Fernandez points out that\\nVoecks professed an inability to recall certain statements he\\nmade during the second interrogation, during which Voecks\\nchanged course and ultimately attributed possession of the .45\\ncaliber gun to Fernandez. At that point, Fernandez argues, he\\nshould have been permitted to establish through Frusti the\\nstatements that Voecks was purportedly unable to recall. See\\npursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 613(b)1; United States v. DeMarco, 784\\nF.3d 388, 394 (7th Cir. 2015) (extrinsic evidence of witness’s\\nprior statement is admissible pursuant to Rule 613(b) for\\n\\n\\n1\\n Rule 613(b) provides: “Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent\\nstatement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to\\nexplain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given the opportunity\\nto examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires.”\\n\\f12 No. 17-3421\\n\\npurpose of impeaching witness so long as witness has first\\nbeen given opportunity to explain or deny statement); see also\\nUnited States v. Lopez, 870 F.3d 573, 582 (7th Cir. 2017) (constru-\\ning rule broadly to permit extrinsic evidence even when\\nwitness has acknowledged prior statement) (collecting cases).\\nBut the logical first step the defense could have taken in this\\nregard was to present Voecks with the transcript of the\\ninterrogation and ask him whether that refreshed his recollec-\\ntion as to what he said. See, e.g., United States v. Vasquez, 635\\nF.3d 889, 895 (7th Cir. 2011), cert. dismissed, 566 U.S. 376, 132\\nS. Ct. 1532 (2012). If Voecks was responding to these inquiries\\nin good faith, then a review of the transcript might have caused\\nhim to recall and acknowledge the statements in question. If so,\\nthen the defense’s need to question Frusti on these points\\nwould have been reduced, as a practical matter, if not elimi-\\nnated. But see Lopez, 870 F.3d at 581 (“[E]ven when a witness\\nadmits to making a prior inconsistent statement, Federal Rule\\nof Evidence 613(b) should be read broadly to allow a party ‘to\\nintroduce extrinsic evidence to emphasize the fact that the\\nwitness made the prior statement.’”) (quoting United States v.\\nLashmett, 965 F.2d 179, 182 (7th Cir. 1992)). If, at the other\\nextreme, Voecks denied making the statements, then of course\\nit would have been entirely proper to ask Frusti what Voecks\\nhad said. See DeMarco, 784 F.3d at 394 (once witness has denied\\nmaking prior statement, Rule 613(b) permits extrinsic proof of\\nthat statement). And if, instead of either acknowledging or\\ndenying his prior statements, Voecks had continued to profess\\na lack of recollection, then it would have been up to the district\\njudge to decide whether his professed lapse of memory was\\ngenuine. If the court were to conclude that Voecks was simply\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 13\\n\\nbeing evasive, then establishing his statements through Frusti\\nagain would have been permissible. Cf. United States v. DiCaro,\\n772 F.2d 1314, 1322 (7th Cir. 1985) (where district court found\\nwitness lied in professing amnesia, court did not abuse its\\ndiscretion in admitting witness’s prior grand jury testimony\\nper Rule 801(d)(1)(A)). On the other hand, if the court believed\\nthat Voecks’ failure of memory was genuine, then the admissi-\\nbility of Voecks’ prior statements through Frusti would have\\npresented a closer question. Compare United States v. Brown, 788\\nF.3d 830, 834 (8th Cir. 2015) (it is within trial judge’s discretion\\nto exclude extrinsic evidence of witness’s prior statement\\nwhere witness asserts in good faith she cannot recall making\\nthe statement), with United States v. Bullcalf, 563 F. App’x 535,\\n536 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (witness’s inability to recall\\nprior statement should be treated as denial for purposes of\\nRule 613(b)). The defense did not attempt to refresh Voecks’\\nrecollection using the transcript of his interrogations, so\\narguably it did not lay the requisite groundwork for admitting\\nthe statements through Frusti.2\\n Even assuming, on the broadest reading of Rule 613(b), that\\nthe court should have allowed Frusti to be questioned about\\nVoecks’ statements once Voecks himself professed not to\\nremember making them, any error with respect to the restric-\\ntions imposed on cross-examination of Frusti—as well as\\nVoecks—was harmless. The jury certainly was aware that\\nVoecks gave multiple, contradictory statements to the police\\n\\n\\n2\\n By contrast, the defense did present Frusti with a transcript of the\\ninterrogation in order to refresh his recollection as to a point Frusti claimed\\nan inability to recall. R. 40 at 183.\\n\\f14 No. 17-3421\\n\\nwhich began with the claim that the gun belonged to him and\\nended with the claim that the gun belonged to Fernandez. It is\\ntrue that the defense was not able to elicit every detail of the\\nvarious accounts that Voecks had given to Frusti. (For exam-\\nple, in his first version, Voecks told Frusti that he had met the\\nman from whom he had obtained the gun at a methadone\\nclinic.) It is also true that the defense was not able to establish\\nthe particulars of what prompted Voecks to abandon his\\nsecond version (that he did not see anyone put the gun into the\\nfront-seat console of the car) for his third and final version (that\\nFernandez put the gun there). However, we are not convinced\\nthat such details were vital to the defense. The jury was fully\\naware that Voecks had first claimed the gun was his, but\\nduring the second interrogation had abandoned his first\\naccount and claimed the gun was Fernandez’s. Critically, the\\njury was also made aware of the fact that it was the warning\\nfrom Sergeant Morris that Voecks would be held to account for\\nany crimes connected to that gun which prompted Voecks to\\nreconsider the first story and agree to the second interview,\\nwhere he ultimately incriminated Fernandez. We can readily\\nappreciate that eliciting the specifics of what Frusti said to and\\nasked of Voecks, and what Voecks said in response, would\\ndemonstrate both Voecks’ facility with inventing details and\\nhis clumsiness in contradicting himself on such key points as\\nto whether he knew there was a gun in the center console of\\nthe car. The restrictions imposed on the cross-examinations of\\nVoecks and Frusti made it an unnecessarily difficult task for\\nthe defense to lay bare the full evolution and context of\\nVoecks’ statements regarding the .45 caliber pistol. But the\\ndefense nonetheless was able to establish the gist of the two\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 15\\n\\ncontradictory accounts of the gun’s ownership and the trigger\\nfor Voecks’ decision to abandon his original statement and\\nattribute possession of the gun to Fernandez. Defense counsel\\nmade full use of the (purportedly self-serving) evolution of\\nVoecks’ account in closing argument. R. 41 at 265–68.\\nFernandez has not shown us why any of the omitted details of\\nFrusti’s interrogations of Voecks mattered so much as to\\ndemonstrate reversible error. And although Fernandez did not\\ninvoke his Confrontation Clause rights below and arguably\\nforfeited any constitutional claim, for the sake of completeness,\\nwe note that his ability to raise the essential points as to\\nVoecks’ change of story defeats any claim of plain error in this\\nregard.\\nB. Admissibility of the text messages\\n Fernandez next contends that the district court erred in\\nprecluding him from questioning defense witness Stramowski\\nabout the content of the texts she had purportedly received\\nfrom Voecks in the run-up to the trial. Once Voecks was\\nconfronted with and essentially denied having sent those texts,\\nFernandez argues, he should have been permitted to introduce\\nextrinsic evidence of the texts in order to establish Voecks’ bias\\nagainst both Fernandez and Stramowski and his motive to\\ninculpate Fernandez at trial. The district court’s understanding\\nthat Rule 608(b) forbade extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior\\nstatements for these purposes was mistaken, he contends.3\\n\\n\\n3\\n In relevant part, Rule 608(b) provides: “Except for a criminal conviction\\nunder Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific\\ninstances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s\\n (continued...)\\n\\f16 No. 17-3421\\n\\n We do not disagree with Fernandez that evidence as to the\\ntexts, if they were indeed sent by Voecks, was admissible to\\nestablish Voecks’ bias and motive as a witness for the govern-\\nment. See United States v. DeMarco, supra, 784 F.3d at 394\\n(noting that Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) allows proof of specific\\ninstances of conduct to establish bias or prior inconsistent\\nstatement) (citing United States v. McGee, 408 F.3d 966, 981–82\\n(7th Cir. 2005)). Statements in the texts to the effect that both\\nFernandez and Stramowski were going to “get yours” and\\nthat, as between Fernandez and Voecks, only one was going to\\n“survive” and it was not going to be Fernandez, certainly\\ncould be understood to reflect that Voecks had an axe to grind\\nagainst Fernandez and a motive to help himself by testifying\\nfor the government at Fernandez’s expense. Once Voecks was\\nconfronted with the texts and effectively denied sending them,\\nthe door was opened to extrinsic evidence of the texts pursuant\\nto Rule 613(b), contrary to the district court’s understanding.\\nDeMarco, 784 F.3d at 394.\\n But for two reasons, we do not think the district court erred\\nin sustaining the government’s objections when the defense\\nbegan to ask Stramowski about these texts. First, when the\\nmatter of the texts was first raised with the district judge prior\\nto opening statements, Fernandez’s attorneys indicated that it\\nwas not their intent to establish the substance of the texts\\n\\n\\n3\\n (...continued)\\ncharacter for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow\\nthem to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthful-\\nness or untruthfulness of: (1) the witness; or (2) another witness whose\\ncharacter the witness being cross-examined has testified about. …\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 17\\n\\nthrough extrinsic evidence; instead, counsel simply wanted the\\nopportunity to question Voecks about the texts. R. 40 at 33, 35.\\nThe court readily acceded to that limited request. We inquired\\nat oral argument whether, after Voecks had been confronted\\nwith the texts and denied having sent them, defense counsel\\never argued to the court that circumstances had changed and\\nthat the defense should now be permitted to prove the exis-\\ntence and contents of the texts through extrinsic evidence.\\nCounsel answered that question in the negative. The district\\ncourt can hardly be faulted for barring evidence that the\\ndefense had disclaimed an intent to introduce.\\n Second, given the late hour at which the texts came to\\nlight—just as opening statements and the presentation of\\nevidence was about to begin—there was very little opportunity\\nfor either party to establish the authenticity of the texts. The\\ncourt rightly flagged the authenticity of the texts as a concern\\nfrom the start, and we may safely assume that it would have\\ntaken some amount of time to investigate this. But the presen-\\ntation of evidence at trial began and concluded on the same\\nday that the texts were first raised; and given that the defense\\nhad originally indicated it would be satisfied with the opportu-\\nnity to question Voecks about the texts, the government was\\nnot on notice that it needed to task someone to explore the\\nprovenance and authenticity of the texts. The district court was\\nthus well within its discretion to prohibit the defense from\\nattempting to provide the existence and content of the texts\\nthrough Stramowski.\\n\\f18 No. 17-3421\\n\\nC. Disclosure of Fernandez’s arrest on outstanding warrant\\n Finally, Fernandez contends that the district court erred in\\npermitting the government to establish that he was arrested\\nduring the November 2016 traffic stop on an outstanding\\nwarrant for a probation violation. The government argued, and\\nthe district court agreed, that the arrest was necessary to\\ncomplete the picture of what occurred during the stop and in\\nparticular to explain why Fernandez was loaded into the police\\nvan, which was when officer Graf heard him tell Voecks not to\\nworry about possession of a gun, because that was only a\\nmisdemeanor offense for Voecks. Fernandez contends that\\ndisclosure to the jury of his arrest and the reason for it amount-\\ned to evidence of a prior bad act that was not probative of his\\nguilt on the felon-in-possession charge, and that the court’s\\nrationale in allowing it tracks the “inextricably related”\\nrationale of which we disapproved in United States v. Gorman,\\n613 F.3d 711, 717–19 (7th Cir. 2010).\\n Any potential error in the court’s decision to admit this\\nevidence was harmless, however. Because having a prior\\nfelony conviction was an element of the offense with which\\nFernandez was charged, the jury was necessarily aware that he\\nhad a criminal record. See R. 28 ¶ 1; R. 40 at 189 (stipulation\\nthat Fernandez previously had been convicted of a felony\\noffense). That he was also arrested for a probation violation at\\nthe time of the traffic stop was a relatively benign fact. Given\\nthe limited purpose for which it was admitted, we are not\\nconvinced that disclosure of the arrest was unduly prejudicial\\nto Fernandez.\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 19\\n\\n III.\\n We AFFIRM the judgment.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4364575/\", \"author_raw\": \"Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587322/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Luis Fernandez\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-04\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17-3421\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\n\nLUIS A. FERNANDEZ,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\n No. 2:17-cr-00052-PP-1 — Pamela Pepper, Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 2019\n\n\n Before FLAUM, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Luis Fernandez of\nbeing a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C.\n§ 922(g)(1). Fernandez appeals his conviction, contending that\nthe district court committed three evidentiary errors that\ndeprived him of a fair trial. We affirm.\n\f2 No. 17-3421\n\n I.\n The charge against Fernandez arose out of a traffic stop\nconducted by police in Franklin, Wisconsin (a Milwaukee\nsuburb) on November 20, 2016. Fernandez was sitting in the\nfront passenger seat of a black Chevrolet Caprice, his friend\nAdam Voecks was driving, and Voecks’ fiancée Valerie\nStramowski was in the back seat. Police officer Gabriel Frusti\ninitiated the stop after observing the car move across multiple\nlanes of traffic without signaling and quickly decelerating to a\nhalt. (Voecks would later testify that the car’s engine had died.)\nMoments later, officer Adam Rogge arrived on the scene in\nresponse to Frusti’s request for backup. When Rogge ap-\nproached the driver’s side of the vehicle to speak with Voecks\n(Frusti was speaking with Fernandez on the passenger side), he\nnoticed an odor of marijuana emanating from the interior of\nthe car. Voecks was asked to step out of the car. When asked if\nhe was armed, Voecks disclosed that he had a gun in his right\nfront pocket; officers removed a holstered Kel Tec .380 caliber\npistol from that pocket.\n Ultimately all three of the occupants of the car were taken\ninto police custody. Although Voecks had no criminal record\nand had purchased the gun found on his person legally, he did\nnot have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and was\narrested on that basis. Fernandez and Stramowski were\narrested on outstanding warrants, and Stramowski had also\ngiven the officers a false name in an attempt to evade arrest.\n When the interior of the car was searched, police discov-\nered a second gun—a Springfield Armory .45 caliber pistol—in\nthe center console between the front driver and passenger\n\fNo. 17-3421 3\n\nseats. A pat-down of Voecks’ person also produced a folding\nknife, a crack pipe, and two bullets, one of which was a .38\ncaliber bullet (the same caliber as the pistol found in his pocket)\nand the second of which was a .45 caliber bullet (the same\ncaliber as the pistol discovered in the console).\n The occupants of the car were transported in a police van\nto the Franklin police department for processing and question-\ning. As Fernandez was being placed into the van, officer Adam\nGraf overheard him call out to Voecks, “[D]on’t worry[,] it’s\nonly a misdemeanor for you to have a gun.” R. 40 at 90; see also\nR. 40 at 128.\n Voecks was interviewed twice at the police station, and\nover the course of the two interviews he gave three different\nstatements as to who had possessed the .45 caliber pistol found\nin the car and who had placed it in the center console. Officer\nFrusti conducted both interviews (with officer Rogge sitting\nin). During the first interview, Voecks claimed ownership of\nthat gun and told Frusti that he had obtained it from a friend\nwho had since died. Voecks was subsequently bailed out of jail\nby his father. As he was preparing to leave the station, Ser-\ngeant Dan Morris approached Voecks and warned him that the\npolice would run a trace on the gun, and if they discovered\nthat the gun had been used in any crime, “it was going to come\nback on [him].” R. 40 at 135. Voecks at that point became\nvisibly pale and nervous, and Morris offered him the opportu-\nnity to be interviewed for a second time about the gun; Voecks\naccepted the invitation. During the second interview, Voecks\ntold Frusti that the gun was not his. At first Voecks said that he\ndid not see who had placed it in the center console of the car,\nalthough he suggested it was more likely that Fernandez had\n\f4 No. 17-3421\n\ndone so than Stramowski. But when he was confronted with\ncertain inconsistencies in that new version of events, Voecks\nultimately averred that the gun belonged to Fernandez. Voecks\nstated that when officer Frusti had pulled up behind the car,\nFernandez had panicked, voicing concern that he could “go\naway for 20 years” and not be able to see his four children. At\nFernandez’s urging, Voecks had agreed to claim possession of\nthe gun. While Frusti was calling for backup, Fernandez had\nplaced the gun into the center console. Voecks picked up a\nbullet from the gun that had landed on his seat and placed it\ninto his pocket.\n Voecks became the key prosecution witness against\nFernandez at trial. (No fingerprints were found on the .45\ncaliber pistol, and the government had not had the gun tested\nfor DNA evidence.) Voecks explained that he had first claimed\nownership of the .45 caliber pistol in order to protect his friend,\nFernandez, but changed his mind after being warned that he\nwould be implicated if the police discovered that the gun had\nbeen used in a crime. When defense counsel was cross-examin-\ning Voecks regarding the divergent accounts he had given to\npolice as to whom the gun belonged, the district court sus-\ntained hearsay objections to questions as to what officer Frusti\nhad asked of or said to Voecks during questioning. R. 40 at\n150–51, 152, 155. Defense counsel was able to ask Voecks what\nhe had told Frusti, but not what he was responding to. On\ncertain points, Voecks professed an inability to recall what\nspecifically he had said to Frusti. In particular, when defense\ncounsel asked Voecks about his second story regarding the\ngun, Voecks said that he lacked any recollection of telling\nFrusti that he did not see who placed the .45 caliber pistol in\n\fNo. 17-3421 5\n\nthe center console of the car. R. 40 at 154–55. “I’m not saying I\ndidn’t say it, I’m just saying I don’t remember saying that,”\nVoecks testified. R. 40 at 155. But he did otherwise acknowl-\nedge the first and third accounts he had given Frusti as to\nwhom the gun belonged and how it had come to be in the\ncenter console of the car.\n When Frusti subsequently testified for the government,\ndefense counsel attempted to cross-examine him about the\nvarious statements Voecks had made to him during the two\ninterrogations Frusti had conducted. But the court sustained\nthe government’s hearsay objections to such questions. R. 40 at\n182, 186; see also R. 40 at 220. Thus, for example, when defense\ncounsel asked Frusti what Voecks had said during the initial\ninterrogation, the court sustained a hearsay objection, although\ncounsel was then able to elicit from Frusti (without objection)\nthat Voecks’ initial account involved him having obtained the\n.45 caliber gun from another individual. R. 40 at 182. When the\ncross-examination turned to the second interrogation (after\nVoecks had posted bail), defense counsel was able to elicit from\nFrusti what he said to Voecks during that interrogation, but\n(with one exception) not what Voecks said in response to\nquestioning. R. 40 at 186. The defense was only able to have\nFrusti confirm that Voecks gave inconsistent accounts with\nrespect to the gun. R. 40 at 187–88.\n Voecks, when he was on the witness stand, was also cross-\nexamined regarding certain text messages he allegedly sent to\nStramowski in the days immediately before trial. The two were\nno longer engaged at that point, and Voecks had recently\nbecome aware that Stramowski and Fernandez either were or\nhad been in a relationship with one another. Voecks admitted\n\f6 No. 17-3421\n\nthat the news made him angry. R. 40 at 139. The purported\ntexts from Voecks to Stramowski stated, among other things:\n Have fun talking to your[ ] Boyfriend cause he’s\n gonna do 20-life! I’m testifying, he’s f*cked. Hope\n it’s worth it[,] look what he did. To both of us … .\n I told u a[ ]long time ago, only one of us would\n survive, and it wouldn’t be him! Either way he’s\n f*cked whether it’s by my hands or the court[‘s]. …\n Ur both gonna get urs[.]\n I met with the usa[ ] prosecuting attorney. Luis is\n f*cked. He done a[n]d a fed inmate for life! Keep\n wasting ur money on him. …\nR. 46–2 at 2–6 (sanitizing ours); see also R. 40 at 159–61.\nStramowski had provided screen-shots of these texts to defense\ncounsel (who in turn produced them to the government’s\ncounsel) midway through the first day of trial, just before\nopening statements were to commence. The government\nobjected to any reference to the texts; but as the texts were\nprobative of Voecks’ potential bias and motive to testify, the\ndistrict court allowed the defense to cross-examine Voecks\nabout the texts, as defense counsel had proposed, but indicated\nthat the defense would not be permitted to introduce extrinsic\nevidence of the texts. R. 40 at 36–37, 39–40, 221–22. During the\ncross-examination of Voecks, counsel established that he had\nsent texts to Stramowski in advance of the trial and that his cell\nphone number was the same as the number from which the\ntexts on Stramowski’s phone purportedly came. Counsel then\nread several of the texts to Voecks and asked him whether he\n\fNo. 17-3421 7\n\nhad sent them to Stramowski. In each instance, Voecks\nanswered that he did not recall sending such a text to her.\n Stramowski subsequently testified as a defense witness. She\nindicated that she had not seen any guns in the car on the date\nof the traffic stop, nor had she heard any discussion between\nVoecks and Fernandez regarding the .45 caliber weapon later\ndiscovered in the console. She testified that Voecks owned\nmultiple guns and at one point had possessed as many as five\nwhen she was living with him. When defense counsel at-\ntempted to ask her about the substance of texts she claimed to\nhave received from Voecks in the run-up to the trial, the\ndistrict court sustained the government’s hearsay objection.\nR. 40 at 205. Stramowski did confirm that Voecks was upset to\nlearn that she was in a relationship with Fernandez, and that\nhe told her he was going to “get back at [her]” for that. R. 40 at\n205–06.\n At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Fernandez\nguilty of the felon-in-possession charge; and the district court\nlater denied his motion for a new trial. The court noted that\ndespite the hearsay objections it had sustained when the\ndefense had attempted to ask Voecks what officer Frusti had\nsaid while interrogating him and to ask Frusti how Voecks had\nresponded to Frusti’s questions, the defense had managed to\nestablish how Voecks’ story had evolved during questioning.\nR. 62 at 9–10. As to the texts Voecks had allegedly sent to\nStramowski, the court pointed out that the defense had read\nthose texts to Voecks on cross-examination, so that the jury\nwas aware of what the texts said notwithstanding the fact that\nthe court had not allowed the defense to present extrinsic\nevidence of the texts. R. 62 at 16–18.\n\f8 No. 17-3421\n\n At sentencing, Judge Pepper ordered Fernandez to serve a\nprison term of 27 months, which was at the low end of the\nrange advised by the Sentencing Guidelines.\n II.\nA. Hearsay objections regarding police interrogation of Voecks\n There is no dispute that Voecks gave Frusti contradictory\naccounts as to whom the .45 caliber gun belonged and who had\nplaced it in the center console of the car. As the interrogations\nof Voecks were recorded and transcribed, the parties knew\nexactly what Frusti had said to Voecks during the questioning\nand what Voecks had said to Frusti in response. Frusti and\nVoecks both testified at trial, and the defense wanted leeway\nto question each of them about both sides of the interrogation;\nbut as noted, when the defense attempted to ask Voecks about\nwhat Frusti had said to him and vice-versa, the district court\nsustained the government’s hearsay objections, essentially\nconfining the cross-examination of each witness to his own\nstatements.\n Fernandez argues that the district court erred in imposing\nthese limitations. He contends that “[t]he government’s case\nagainst Fernandez depended entirely on the credibility of\nAdam Voecks, … [s]o it was essential for the defense to\nhighlight each step in Voecks’ ever-evolving story and to\nexplain what led him to shift blame to Fernandez.” Fernandez\nBr. 8. The district court’s hearsay rulings effectively prevented\nthe defense from accomplishing that task, Fernandez asserts,\nand thus denied him the ability to confront his accuser and\npresent a full defense. It was, in his view, confusing and\nunnecessary to restrict the cross-examination of Voecks and\n\fNo. 17-3421 9\n\nFrusti to their respective halves of the interrogations. And\nbecause Voecks professed inability to recall certain of the\nstatements he made during questioning, and Fernandez’s\ncounsel was prohibited from asking Frusti to fill in those gaps,\nthe defense was unable to establish the full content and context\nof Voecks’ changing stories. Ultimately, in Fernandez’s view,\nthe jury was only given the bare outlines of the inconsistent\nstatements that Voecks gave and was kept ignorant of the\ndetails which demonstrated how and why his accounts\nchanged. On appeal, Fernandez suggests for the first time that\nthe error was so serious that it deprived him of his Sixth\nAmendment right to confront Voecks effectively.\n We agree it was error to sustain the hearsay objections to\nquestions aimed at eliciting what questions officer Frusti asked\nof Voecks during the interrogations. It is common ground\nbetween the parties that the statements Voecks made during\ninterrogation were fair game for the impeachment of his\ntestimony at trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A). To that end, it\nwas entirely reasonable to question Voecks about what he had\ntold Frusti at the police station, and the district court allowed\nthe defense to do so. But interrogations are an inherently\ninteractive process, and so Frusti’s half of the interrogations\nwere material to the context of Voecks’ answers. What Frusti\nasked of or said to Voecks during interrogation was not offered\nfor its truth, but rather to establish what questions or state-\nments Voecks was responding to and the effect the former had\non Voecks as the listener. This was a legitimate non-hearsay\npurpose aimed at providing the jury with the full context of\nVoecks’ prior statements. See, e.g., Estate of Moreland v. Dieter,\n395 F.3d 747, 753–54 (7th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that interroga-\n\f10 No. 17-3421\n\ntor’s questions were offered to provide context for defendant’s\nanswers and as such were not hearsay) (citing United States v.\nWoods, 301 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2002) (informant’s side of\nrecorded conversation with defendant admissible to provide\ncontext)); United States v. Gajo, 290 F.3d 922, 929–30 (7th Cir.\n2002) (statements of non-conspirator, in recorded conversation\nwith co-conspirator, admissible to provide context for co-\nconspirator’s statements) (collecting cases); United States v.\nGutierrez-Chavez, 842 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir. 1988) (co-defendant’s\nstatements introduced not for their truth but only to show they\nwere uttered). The judge may have been misled by the de-\nfense’s first foray into Frusti’s side of the interrogations, which\nasked Voecks to recount what Frusti had told him on a\nparticular point. R. 40 at 150–51. There may well be instances\nin which a party improperly seeks to elicit an interrogator’s\nstatement during questioning (representing what another\nwitness has told the authorities, for example) for its truth\nrather than to establish the context of what the person being\ninterrogated said next. If that were the evident aim of defense\ncounsel’s questioning here, then we would agree that the\ninquiries were barred by the hearsay rule. But it soon became\nclear that Fernandez’s attorney was attempting to elicit Frusti’s\nstatements and questions for legitimate non-hearsay purposes.\nCounsel’s next question, for example, was what Frusti had\nasked Voecks, and the court sustained the government’s\nobjection to that inquiry as well. R. 40 at 151. Consequently, the\nhearsay rule did not support the court’s decision to preclude\nthe defense from establishing both sides of the interrogations\nthrough Voecks himself.\n\fNo. 17-3421 11\n\n The defense had a legitimate purpose in examining Voecks\nabout the various contradictory stories he had told to Frusti\nabout the gun, and as part of that inquiry it was entirely proper\nfor the defense to establish what Frusti said and asked during\nthe interrogations in order to place Voecks’ answers in context.\nTo the extent Frusti may have been leading or cajoling Voecks\nto change his story, for example, Frusti’s side of the interroga-\ntions would be relevant to the jury’s assessment of Voecks’\ncredibility in pointing the finger at Fernandez. Insisting that\nFernandez’s counsel instead wait to ask Frusti about his half of\nthe conversations was at best a cumbersome alternative, and\none that precluded the defense from eliciting what Voecks\nunderstood Frusti to be saying to him.\n The converse restriction the court imposed on the cross-\nexamination of Frusti was also problematic, but less trouble-\nsome on the record as it stands. Fernandez points out that\nVoecks professed an inability to recall certain statements he\nmade during the second interrogation, during which Voecks\nchanged course and ultimately attributed possession of the .45\ncaliber gun to Fernandez. At that point, Fernandez argues, he\nshould have been permitted to establish through Frusti the\nstatements that Voecks was purportedly unable to recall. See\npursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 613(b)1; United States v. DeMarco, 784\nF.3d 388, 394 (7th Cir. 2015) (extrinsic evidence of witness’s\nprior statement is admissible pursuant to Rule 613(b) for\n\n\n1\n Rule 613(b) provides: “Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent\nstatement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to\nexplain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given the opportunity\nto examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires.”\n\f12 No. 17-3421\n\npurpose of impeaching witness so long as witness has first\nbeen given opportunity to explain or deny statement); see also\nUnited States v. Lopez, 870 F.3d 573, 582 (7th Cir. 2017) (constru-\ning rule broadly to permit extrinsic evidence even when\nwitness has acknowledged prior statement) (collecting cases).\nBut the logical first step the defense could have taken in this\nregard was to present Voecks with the transcript of the\ninterrogation and ask him whether that refreshed his recollec-\ntion as to what he said. See, e.g., United States v. Vasquez, 635\nF.3d 889, 895 (7th Cir. 2011), cert. dismissed, 566 U.S. 376, 132\nS. Ct. 1532 (2012). If Voecks was responding to these inquiries\nin good faith, then a review of the transcript might have caused\nhim to recall and acknowledge the statements in question. If so,\nthen the defense’s need to question Frusti on these points\nwould have been reduced, as a practical matter, if not elimi-\nnated. But see Lopez, 870 F.3d at 581 (“[E]ven when a witness\nadmits to making a prior inconsistent statement, Federal Rule\nof Evidence 613(b) should be read broadly to allow a party ‘to\nintroduce extrinsic evidence to emphasize the fact that the\nwitness made the prior statement.’”) (quoting United States v.\nLashmett, 965 F.2d 179, 182 (7th Cir. 1992)). If, at the other\nextreme, Voecks denied making the statements, then of course\nit would have been entirely proper to ask Frusti what Voecks\nhad said. See DeMarco, 784 F.3d at 394 (once witness has denied\nmaking prior statement, Rule 613(b) permits extrinsic proof of\nthat statement). And if, instead of either acknowledging or\ndenying his prior statements, Voecks had continued to profess\na lack of recollection, then it would have been up to the district\njudge to decide whether his professed lapse of memory was\ngenuine. If the court were to conclude that Voecks was simply\n\fNo. 17-3421 13\n\nbeing evasive, then establishing his statements through Frusti\nagain would have been permissible. Cf. United States v. DiCaro,\n772 F.2d 1314, 1322 (7th Cir. 1985) (where district court found\nwitness lied in professing amnesia, court did not abuse its\ndiscretion in admitting witness’s prior grand jury testimony\nper Rule 801(d)(1)(A)). On the other hand, if the court believed\nthat Voecks’ failure of memory was genuine, then the admissi-\nbility of Voecks’ prior statements through Frusti would have\npresented a closer question. Compare United States v. Brown, 788\nF.3d 830, 834 (8th Cir. 2015) (it is within trial judge’s discretion\nto exclude extrinsic evidence of witness’s prior statement\nwhere witness asserts in good faith she cannot recall making\nthe statement), with United States v. Bullcalf, 563 F. App’x 535,\n536 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (witness’s inability to recall\nprior statement should be treated as denial for purposes of\nRule 613(b)). The defense did not attempt to refresh Voecks’\nrecollection using the transcript of his interrogations, so\narguably it did not lay the requisite groundwork for admitting\nthe statements through Frusti.2\n Even assuming, on the broadest reading of Rule 613(b), that\nthe court should have allowed Frusti to be questioned about\nVoecks’ statements once Voecks himself professed not to\nremember making them, any error with respect to the restric-\ntions imposed on cross-examination of Frusti—as well as\nVoecks—was harmless. The jury certainly was aware that\nVoecks gave multiple, contradictory statements to the police\n\n\n2\n By contrast, the defense did present Frusti with a transcript of the\ninterrogation in order to refresh his recollection as to a point Frusti claimed\nan inability to recall. R. 40 at 183.\n\f14 No. 17-3421\n\nwhich began with the claim that the gun belonged to him and\nended with the claim that the gun belonged to Fernandez. It is\ntrue that the defense was not able to elicit every detail of the\nvarious accounts that Voecks had given to Frusti. (For exam-\nple, in his first version, Voecks told Frusti that he had met the\nman from whom he had obtained the gun at a methadone\nclinic.) It is also true that the defense was not able to establish\nthe particulars of what prompted Voecks to abandon his\nsecond version (that he did not see anyone put the gun into the\nfront-seat console of the car) for his third and final version (that\nFernandez put the gun there). However, we are not convinced\nthat such details were vital to the defense. The jury was fully\naware that Voecks had first claimed the gun was his, but\nduring the second interrogation had abandoned his first\naccount and claimed the gun was Fernandez’s. Critically, the\njury was also made aware of the fact that it was the warning\nfrom Sergeant Morris that Voecks would be held to account for\nany crimes connected to that gun which prompted Voecks to\nreconsider the first story and agree to the second interview,\nwhere he ultimately incriminated Fernandez. We can readily\nappreciate that eliciting the specifics of what Frusti said to and\nasked of Voecks, and what Voecks said in response, would\ndemonstrate both Voecks’ facility with inventing details and\nhis clumsiness in contradicting himself on such key points as\nto whether he knew there was a gun in the center console of\nthe car. The restrictions imposed on the cross-examinations of\nVoecks and Frusti made it an unnecessarily difficult task for\nthe defense to lay bare the full evolution and context of\nVoecks’ statements regarding the .45 caliber pistol. But the\ndefense nonetheless was able to establish the gist of the two\n\fNo. 17-3421 15\n\ncontradictory accounts of the gun’s ownership and the trigger\nfor Voecks’ decision to abandon his original statement and\nattribute possession of the gun to Fernandez. Defense counsel\nmade full use of the (purportedly self-serving) evolution of\nVoecks’ account in closing argument. R. 41 at 265–68.\nFernandez has not shown us why any of the omitted details of\nFrusti’s interrogations of Voecks mattered so much as to\ndemonstrate reversible error. And although Fernandez did not\ninvoke his Confrontation Clause rights below and arguably\nforfeited any constitutional claim, for the sake of completeness,\nwe note that his ability to raise the essential points as to\nVoecks’ change of story defeats any claim of plain error in this\nregard.\nB. Admissibility of the text messages\n Fernandez next contends that the district court erred in\nprecluding him from questioning defense witness Stramowski\nabout the content of the texts she had purportedly received\nfrom Voecks in the run-up to the trial. Once Voecks was\nconfronted with and essentially denied having sent those texts,\nFernandez argues, he should have been permitted to introduce\nextrinsic evidence of the texts in order to establish Voecks’ bias\nagainst both Fernandez and Stramowski and his motive to\ninculpate Fernandez at trial. The district court’s understanding\nthat Rule 608(b) forbade extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior\nstatements for these purposes was mistaken, he contends.3\n\n\n3\n In relevant part, Rule 608(b) provides: “Except for a criminal conviction\nunder Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific\ninstances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s\n (continued...)\n\f16 No. 17-3421\n\n We do not disagree with Fernandez that evidence as to the\ntexts, if they were indeed sent by Voecks, was admissible to\nestablish Voecks’ bias and motive as a witness for the govern-\nment. See United States v. DeMarco, supra, 784 F.3d at 394\n(noting that Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) allows proof of specific\ninstances of conduct to establish bias or prior inconsistent\nstatement) (citing United States v. McGee, 408 F.3d 966, 981–82\n(7th Cir. 2005)). Statements in the texts to the effect that both\nFernandez and Stramowski were going to “get yours” and\nthat, as between Fernandez and Voecks, only one was going to\n“survive” and it was not going to be Fernandez, certainly\ncould be understood to reflect that Voecks had an axe to grind\nagainst Fernandez and a motive to help himself by testifying\nfor the government at Fernandez’s expense. Once Voecks was\nconfronted with the texts and effectively denied sending them,\nthe door was opened to extrinsic evidence of the texts pursuant\nto Rule 613(b), contrary to the district court’s understanding.\nDeMarco, 784 F.3d at 394.\n But for two reasons, we do not think the district court erred\nin sustaining the government’s objections when the defense\nbegan to ask Stramowski about these texts. First, when the\nmatter of the texts was first raised with the district judge prior\nto opening statements, Fernandez’s attorneys indicated that it\nwas not their intent to establish the substance of the texts\n\n\n3\n (...continued)\ncharacter for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow\nthem to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthful-\nness or untruthfulness of: (1) the witness; or (2) another witness whose\ncharacter the witness being cross-examined has testified about. …\n\fNo. 17-3421 17\n\nthrough extrinsic evidence; instead, counsel simply wanted the\nopportunity to question Voecks about the texts. R. 40 at 33, 35.\nThe court readily acceded to that limited request. We inquired\nat oral argument whether, after Voecks had been confronted\nwith the texts and denied having sent them, defense counsel\never argued to the court that circumstances had changed and\nthat the defense should now be permitted to prove the exis-\ntence and contents of the texts through extrinsic evidence.\nCounsel answered that question in the negative. The district\ncourt can hardly be faulted for barring evidence that the\ndefense had disclaimed an intent to introduce.\n Second, given the late hour at which the texts came to\nlight—just as opening statements and the presentation of\nevidence was about to begin—there was very little opportunity\nfor either party to establish the authenticity of the texts. The\ncourt rightly flagged the authenticity of the texts as a concern\nfrom the start, and we may safely assume that it would have\ntaken some amount of time to investigate this. But the presen-\ntation of evidence at trial began and concluded on the same\nday that the texts were first raised; and given that the defense\nhad originally indicated it would be satisfied with the opportu-\nnity to question Voecks about the texts, the government was\nnot on notice that it needed to task someone to explore the\nprovenance and authenticity of the texts. The district court was\nthus well within its discretion to prohibit the defense from\nattempting to provide the existence and content of the texts\nthrough Stramowski.\n\f18 No. 17-3421\n\nC. Disclosure of Fernandez’s arrest on outstanding warrant\n Finally, Fernandez contends that the district court erred in\npermitting the government to establish that he was arrested\nduring the November 2016 traffic stop on an outstanding\nwarrant for a probation violation. The government argued, and\nthe district court agreed, that the arrest was necessary to\ncomplete the picture of what occurred during the stop and in\nparticular to explain why Fernandez was loaded into the police\nvan, which was when officer Graf heard him tell Voecks not to\nworry about possession of a gun, because that was only a\nmisdemeanor offense for Voecks. Fernandez contends that\ndisclosure to the jury of his arrest and the reason for it amount-\ned to evidence of a prior bad act that was not probative of his\nguilt on the felon-in-possession charge, and that the court’s\nrationale in allowing it tracks the “inextricably related”\nrationale of which we disapproved in United States v. Gorman,\n613 F.3d 711, 717–19 (7th Cir. 2010).\n Any potential error in the court’s decision to admit this\nevidence was harmless, however. Because having a prior\nfelony conviction was an element of the offense with which\nFernandez was charged, the jury was necessarily aware that he\nhad a criminal record. See R. 28 ¶ 1; R. 40 at 189 (stipulation\nthat Fernandez previously had been convicted of a felony\noffense). That he was also arrested for a probation violation at\nthe time of the traffic stop was a relatively benign fact. Given\nthe limited purpose for which it was admitted, we are not\nconvinced that disclosure of the arrest was unduly prejudicial\nto Fernandez.\n\fNo. 17-3421 19\n\n III.\n We AFFIRM the judgment.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Luis Fernandez\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-04\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17-3421\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nLUIS A. FERNANDEZ,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 2:17-cr-00052-PP-1 — Pamela Pepper, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before FLAUM, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Luis Fernandez of\\nbeing a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 922(g)(1). Fernandez appeals his conviction, contending that\\nthe district court committed three evidentiary errors that\\ndeprived him of a fair trial. We affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 17-3421\\n\\n I.\\n The charge against Fernandez arose out of a traffic stop\\nconducted by police in Franklin, Wisconsin (a Milwaukee\\nsuburb) on November 20, 2016. Fernandez was sitting in the\\nfront passenger seat of a black Chevrolet Caprice, his friend\\nAdam Voecks was driving, and Voecks’ fiancée Valerie\\nStramowski was in the back seat. Police officer Gabriel Frusti\\ninitiated the stop after observing the car move across multiple\\nlanes of traffic without signaling and quickly decelerating to a\\nhalt. (Voecks would later testify that the car’s engine had died.)\\nMoments later, officer Adam Rogge arrived on the scene in\\nresponse to Frusti’s request for backup. When Rogge ap-\\nproached the driver’s side of the vehicle to speak with Voecks\\n(Frusti was speaking with Fernandez on the passenger side), he\\nnoticed an odor of marijuana emanating from the interior of\\nthe car. Voecks was asked to step out of the car. When asked if\\nhe was armed, Voecks disclosed that he had a gun in his right\\nfront pocket; officers removed a holstered Kel Tec .380 caliber\\npistol from that pocket.\\n Ultimately all three of the occupants of the car were taken\\ninto police custody. Although Voecks had no criminal record\\nand had purchased the gun found on his person legally, he did\\nnot have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and was\\narrested on that basis. Fernandez and Stramowski were\\narrested on outstanding warrants, and Stramowski had also\\ngiven the officers a false name in an attempt to evade arrest.\\n When the interior of the car was searched, police discov-\\nered a second gun—a Springfield Armory .45 caliber pistol—in\\nthe center console between the front driver and passenger\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 3\\n\\nseats. A pat-down of Voecks’ person also produced a folding\\nknife, a crack pipe, and two bullets, one of which was a .38\\ncaliber bullet (the same caliber as the pistol found in his pocket)\\nand the second of which was a .45 caliber bullet (the same\\ncaliber as the pistol discovered in the console).\\n The occupants of the car were transported in a police van\\nto the Franklin police department for processing and question-\\ning. As Fernandez was being placed into the van, officer Adam\\nGraf overheard him call out to Voecks, “[D]on’t worry[,] it’s\\nonly a misdemeanor for you to have a gun.” R. 40 at 90; see also\\nR. 40 at 128.\\n Voecks was interviewed twice at the police station, and\\nover the course of the two interviews he gave three different\\nstatements as to who had possessed the .45 caliber pistol found\\nin the car and who had placed it in the center console. Officer\\nFrusti conducted both interviews (with officer Rogge sitting\\nin). During the first interview, Voecks claimed ownership of\\nthat gun and told Frusti that he had obtained it from a friend\\nwho had since died. Voecks was subsequently bailed out of jail\\nby his father. As he was preparing to leave the station, Ser-\\ngeant Dan Morris approached Voecks and warned him that the\\npolice would run a trace on the gun, and if they discovered\\nthat the gun had been used in any crime, “it was going to come\\nback on [him].” R. 40 at 135. Voecks at that point became\\nvisibly pale and nervous, and Morris offered him the opportu-\\nnity to be interviewed for a second time about the gun; Voecks\\naccepted the invitation. During the second interview, Voecks\\ntold Frusti that the gun was not his. At first Voecks said that he\\ndid not see who had placed it in the center console of the car,\\nalthough he suggested it was more likely that Fernandez had\\n\\f4 No. 17-3421\\n\\ndone so than Stramowski. But when he was confronted with\\ncertain inconsistencies in that new version of events, Voecks\\nultimately averred that the gun belonged to Fernandez. Voecks\\nstated that when officer Frusti had pulled up behind the car,\\nFernandez had panicked, voicing concern that he could “go\\naway for 20 years” and not be able to see his four children. At\\nFernandez’s urging, Voecks had agreed to claim possession of\\nthe gun. While Frusti was calling for backup, Fernandez had\\nplaced the gun into the center console. Voecks picked up a\\nbullet from the gun that had landed on his seat and placed it\\ninto his pocket.\\n Voecks became the key prosecution witness against\\nFernandez at trial. (No fingerprints were found on the .45\\ncaliber pistol, and the government had not had the gun tested\\nfor DNA evidence.) Voecks explained that he had first claimed\\nownership of the .45 caliber pistol in order to protect his friend,\\nFernandez, but changed his mind after being warned that he\\nwould be implicated if the police discovered that the gun had\\nbeen used in a crime. When defense counsel was cross-examin-\\ning Voecks regarding the divergent accounts he had given to\\npolice as to whom the gun belonged, the district court sus-\\ntained hearsay objections to questions as to what officer Frusti\\nhad asked of or said to Voecks during questioning. R. 40 at\\n150–51, 152, 155. Defense counsel was able to ask Voecks what\\nhe had told Frusti, but not what he was responding to. On\\ncertain points, Voecks professed an inability to recall what\\nspecifically he had said to Frusti. In particular, when defense\\ncounsel asked Voecks about his second story regarding the\\ngun, Voecks said that he lacked any recollection of telling\\nFrusti that he did not see who placed the .45 caliber pistol in\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 5\\n\\nthe center console of the car. R. 40 at 154–55. “I’m not saying I\\ndidn’t say it, I’m just saying I don’t remember saying that,”\\nVoecks testified. R. 40 at 155. But he did otherwise acknowl-\\nedge the first and third accounts he had given Frusti as to\\nwhom the gun belonged and how it had come to be in the\\ncenter console of the car.\\n When Frusti subsequently testified for the government,\\ndefense counsel attempted to cross-examine him about the\\nvarious statements Voecks had made to him during the two\\ninterrogations Frusti had conducted. But the court sustained\\nthe government’s hearsay objections to such questions. R. 40 at\\n182, 186; see also R. 40 at 220. Thus, for example, when defense\\ncounsel asked Frusti what Voecks had said during the initial\\ninterrogation, the court sustained a hearsay objection, although\\ncounsel was then able to elicit from Frusti (without objection)\\nthat Voecks’ initial account involved him having obtained the\\n.45 caliber gun from another individual. R. 40 at 182. When the\\ncross-examination turned to the second interrogation (after\\nVoecks had posted bail), defense counsel was able to elicit from\\nFrusti what he said to Voecks during that interrogation, but\\n(with one exception) not what Voecks said in response to\\nquestioning. R. 40 at 186. The defense was only able to have\\nFrusti confirm that Voecks gave inconsistent accounts with\\nrespect to the gun. R. 40 at 187–88.\\n Voecks, when he was on the witness stand, was also cross-\\nexamined regarding certain text messages he allegedly sent to\\nStramowski in the days immediately before trial. The two were\\nno longer engaged at that point, and Voecks had recently\\nbecome aware that Stramowski and Fernandez either were or\\nhad been in a relationship with one another. Voecks admitted\\n\\f6 No. 17-3421\\n\\nthat the news made him angry. R. 40 at 139. The purported\\ntexts from Voecks to Stramowski stated, among other things:\\n Have fun talking to your[ ] Boyfriend cause he’s\\n gonna do 20-life! I’m testifying, he’s f*cked. Hope\\n it’s worth it[,] look what he did. To both of us … .\\n I told u a[ ]long time ago, only one of us would\\n survive, and it wouldn’t be him! Either way he’s\\n f*cked whether it’s by my hands or the court[‘s]. …\\n Ur both gonna get urs[.]\\n I met with the usa[ ] prosecuting attorney. Luis is\\n f*cked. He done a[n]d a fed inmate for life! Keep\\n wasting ur money on him. …\\nR. 46–2 at 2–6 (sanitizing ours); see also R. 40 at 159–61.\\nStramowski had provided screen-shots of these texts to defense\\ncounsel (who in turn produced them to the government’s\\ncounsel) midway through the first day of trial, just before\\nopening statements were to commence. The government\\nobjected to any reference to the texts; but as the texts were\\nprobative of Voecks’ potential bias and motive to testify, the\\ndistrict court allowed the defense to cross-examine Voecks\\nabout the texts, as defense counsel had proposed, but indicated\\nthat the defense would not be permitted to introduce extrinsic\\nevidence of the texts. R. 40 at 36–37, 39–40, 221–22. During the\\ncross-examination of Voecks, counsel established that he had\\nsent texts to Stramowski in advance of the trial and that his cell\\nphone number was the same as the number from which the\\ntexts on Stramowski’s phone purportedly came. Counsel then\\nread several of the texts to Voecks and asked him whether he\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 7\\n\\nhad sent them to Stramowski. In each instance, Voecks\\nanswered that he did not recall sending such a text to her.\\n Stramowski subsequently testified as a defense witness. She\\nindicated that she had not seen any guns in the car on the date\\nof the traffic stop, nor had she heard any discussion between\\nVoecks and Fernandez regarding the .45 caliber weapon later\\ndiscovered in the console. She testified that Voecks owned\\nmultiple guns and at one point had possessed as many as five\\nwhen she was living with him. When defense counsel at-\\ntempted to ask her about the substance of texts she claimed to\\nhave received from Voecks in the run-up to the trial, the\\ndistrict court sustained the government’s hearsay objection.\\nR. 40 at 205. Stramowski did confirm that Voecks was upset to\\nlearn that she was in a relationship with Fernandez, and that\\nhe told her he was going to “get back at [her]” for that. R. 40 at\\n205–06.\\n At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Fernandez\\nguilty of the felon-in-possession charge; and the district court\\nlater denied his motion for a new trial. The court noted that\\ndespite the hearsay objections it had sustained when the\\ndefense had attempted to ask Voecks what officer Frusti had\\nsaid while interrogating him and to ask Frusti how Voecks had\\nresponded to Frusti’s questions, the defense had managed to\\nestablish how Voecks’ story had evolved during questioning.\\nR. 62 at 9–10. As to the texts Voecks had allegedly sent to\\nStramowski, the court pointed out that the defense had read\\nthose texts to Voecks on cross-examination, so that the jury\\nwas aware of what the texts said notwithstanding the fact that\\nthe court had not allowed the defense to present extrinsic\\nevidence of the texts. R. 62 at 16–18.\\n\\f8 No. 17-3421\\n\\n At sentencing, Judge Pepper ordered Fernandez to serve a\\nprison term of 27 months, which was at the low end of the\\nrange advised by the Sentencing Guidelines.\\n II.\\nA. Hearsay objections regarding police interrogation of Voecks\\n There is no dispute that Voecks gave Frusti contradictory\\naccounts as to whom the .45 caliber gun belonged and who had\\nplaced it in the center console of the car. As the interrogations\\nof Voecks were recorded and transcribed, the parties knew\\nexactly what Frusti had said to Voecks during the questioning\\nand what Voecks had said to Frusti in response. Frusti and\\nVoecks both testified at trial, and the defense wanted leeway\\nto question each of them about both sides of the interrogation;\\nbut as noted, when the defense attempted to ask Voecks about\\nwhat Frusti had said to him and vice-versa, the district court\\nsustained the government’s hearsay objections, essentially\\nconfining the cross-examination of each witness to his own\\nstatements.\\n Fernandez argues that the district court erred in imposing\\nthese limitations. He contends that “[t]he government’s case\\nagainst Fernandez depended entirely on the credibility of\\nAdam Voecks, … [s]o it was essential for the defense to\\nhighlight each step in Voecks’ ever-evolving story and to\\nexplain what led him to shift blame to Fernandez.” Fernandez\\nBr. 8. The district court’s hearsay rulings effectively prevented\\nthe defense from accomplishing that task, Fernandez asserts,\\nand thus denied him the ability to confront his accuser and\\npresent a full defense. It was, in his view, confusing and\\nunnecessary to restrict the cross-examination of Voecks and\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 9\\n\\nFrusti to their respective halves of the interrogations. And\\nbecause Voecks professed inability to recall certain of the\\nstatements he made during questioning, and Fernandez’s\\ncounsel was prohibited from asking Frusti to fill in those gaps,\\nthe defense was unable to establish the full content and context\\nof Voecks’ changing stories. Ultimately, in Fernandez’s view,\\nthe jury was only given the bare outlines of the inconsistent\\nstatements that Voecks gave and was kept ignorant of the\\ndetails which demonstrated how and why his accounts\\nchanged. On appeal, Fernandez suggests for the first time that\\nthe error was so serious that it deprived him of his Sixth\\nAmendment right to confront Voecks effectively.\\n We agree it was error to sustain the hearsay objections to\\nquestions aimed at eliciting what questions officer Frusti asked\\nof Voecks during the interrogations. It is common ground\\nbetween the parties that the statements Voecks made during\\ninterrogation were fair game for the impeachment of his\\ntestimony at trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A). To that end, it\\nwas entirely reasonable to question Voecks about what he had\\ntold Frusti at the police station, and the district court allowed\\nthe defense to do so. But interrogations are an inherently\\ninteractive process, and so Frusti’s half of the interrogations\\nwere material to the context of Voecks’ answers. What Frusti\\nasked of or said to Voecks during interrogation was not offered\\nfor its truth, but rather to establish what questions or state-\\nments Voecks was responding to and the effect the former had\\non Voecks as the listener. This was a legitimate non-hearsay\\npurpose aimed at providing the jury with the full context of\\nVoecks’ prior statements. See, e.g., Estate of Moreland v. Dieter,\\n395 F.3d 747, 753–54 (7th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that interroga-\\n\\f10 No. 17-3421\\n\\ntor’s questions were offered to provide context for defendant’s\\nanswers and as such were not hearsay) (citing United States v.\\nWoods, 301 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2002) (informant’s side of\\nrecorded conversation with defendant admissible to provide\\ncontext)); United States v. Gajo, 290 F.3d 922, 929–30 (7th Cir.\\n2002) (statements of non-conspirator, in recorded conversation\\nwith co-conspirator, admissible to provide context for co-\\nconspirator’s statements) (collecting cases); United States v.\\nGutierrez-Chavez, 842 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir. 1988) (co-defendant’s\\nstatements introduced not for their truth but only to show they\\nwere uttered). The judge may have been misled by the de-\\nfense’s first foray into Frusti’s side of the interrogations, which\\nasked Voecks to recount what Frusti had told him on a\\nparticular point. R. 40 at 150–51. There may well be instances\\nin which a party improperly seeks to elicit an interrogator’s\\nstatement during questioning (representing what another\\nwitness has told the authorities, for example) for its truth\\nrather than to establish the context of what the person being\\ninterrogated said next. If that were the evident aim of defense\\ncounsel’s questioning here, then we would agree that the\\ninquiries were barred by the hearsay rule. But it soon became\\nclear that Fernandez’s attorney was attempting to elicit Frusti’s\\nstatements and questions for legitimate non-hearsay purposes.\\nCounsel’s next question, for example, was what Frusti had\\nasked Voecks, and the court sustained the government’s\\nobjection to that inquiry as well. R. 40 at 151. Consequently, the\\nhearsay rule did not support the court’s decision to preclude\\nthe defense from establishing both sides of the interrogations\\nthrough Voecks himself.\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 11\\n\\n The defense had a legitimate purpose in examining Voecks\\nabout the various contradictory stories he had told to Frusti\\nabout the gun, and as part of that inquiry it was entirely proper\\nfor the defense to establish what Frusti said and asked during\\nthe interrogations in order to place Voecks’ answers in context.\\nTo the extent Frusti may have been leading or cajoling Voecks\\nto change his story, for example, Frusti’s side of the interroga-\\ntions would be relevant to the jury’s assessment of Voecks’\\ncredibility in pointing the finger at Fernandez. Insisting that\\nFernandez’s counsel instead wait to ask Frusti about his half of\\nthe conversations was at best a cumbersome alternative, and\\none that precluded the defense from eliciting what Voecks\\nunderstood Frusti to be saying to him.\\n The converse restriction the court imposed on the cross-\\nexamination of Frusti was also problematic, but less trouble-\\nsome on the record as it stands. Fernandez points out that\\nVoecks professed an inability to recall certain statements he\\nmade during the second interrogation, during which Voecks\\nchanged course and ultimately attributed possession of the .45\\ncaliber gun to Fernandez. At that point, Fernandez argues, he\\nshould have been permitted to establish through Frusti the\\nstatements that Voecks was purportedly unable to recall. See\\npursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 613(b)1; United States v. DeMarco, 784\\nF.3d 388, 394 (7th Cir. 2015) (extrinsic evidence of witness’s\\nprior statement is admissible pursuant to Rule 613(b) for\\n\\n\\n1\\n Rule 613(b) provides: “Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent\\nstatement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to\\nexplain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given the opportunity\\nto examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires.”\\n\\f12 No. 17-3421\\n\\npurpose of impeaching witness so long as witness has first\\nbeen given opportunity to explain or deny statement); see also\\nUnited States v. Lopez, 870 F.3d 573, 582 (7th Cir. 2017) (constru-\\ning rule broadly to permit extrinsic evidence even when\\nwitness has acknowledged prior statement) (collecting cases).\\nBut the logical first step the defense could have taken in this\\nregard was to present Voecks with the transcript of the\\ninterrogation and ask him whether that refreshed his recollec-\\ntion as to what he said. See, e.g., United States v. Vasquez, 635\\nF.3d 889, 895 (7th Cir. 2011), cert. dismissed, 566 U.S. 376, 132\\nS. Ct. 1532 (2012). If Voecks was responding to these inquiries\\nin good faith, then a review of the transcript might have caused\\nhim to recall and acknowledge the statements in question. If so,\\nthen the defense’s need to question Frusti on these points\\nwould have been reduced, as a practical matter, if not elimi-\\nnated. But see Lopez, 870 F.3d at 581 (“[E]ven when a witness\\nadmits to making a prior inconsistent statement, Federal Rule\\nof Evidence 613(b) should be read broadly to allow a party ‘to\\nintroduce extrinsic evidence to emphasize the fact that the\\nwitness made the prior statement.’”) (quoting United States v.\\nLashmett, 965 F.2d 179, 182 (7th Cir. 1992)). If, at the other\\nextreme, Voecks denied making the statements, then of course\\nit would have been entirely proper to ask Frusti what Voecks\\nhad said. See DeMarco, 784 F.3d at 394 (once witness has denied\\nmaking prior statement, Rule 613(b) permits extrinsic proof of\\nthat statement). And if, instead of either acknowledging or\\ndenying his prior statements, Voecks had continued to profess\\na lack of recollection, then it would have been up to the district\\njudge to decide whether his professed lapse of memory was\\ngenuine. If the court were to conclude that Voecks was simply\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 13\\n\\nbeing evasive, then establishing his statements through Frusti\\nagain would have been permissible. Cf. United States v. DiCaro,\\n772 F.2d 1314, 1322 (7th Cir. 1985) (where district court found\\nwitness lied in professing amnesia, court did not abuse its\\ndiscretion in admitting witness’s prior grand jury testimony\\nper Rule 801(d)(1)(A)). On the other hand, if the court believed\\nthat Voecks’ failure of memory was genuine, then the admissi-\\nbility of Voecks’ prior statements through Frusti would have\\npresented a closer question. Compare United States v. Brown, 788\\nF.3d 830, 834 (8th Cir. 2015) (it is within trial judge’s discretion\\nto exclude extrinsic evidence of witness’s prior statement\\nwhere witness asserts in good faith she cannot recall making\\nthe statement), with United States v. Bullcalf, 563 F. App’x 535,\\n536 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (witness’s inability to recall\\nprior statement should be treated as denial for purposes of\\nRule 613(b)). The defense did not attempt to refresh Voecks’\\nrecollection using the transcript of his interrogations, so\\narguably it did not lay the requisite groundwork for admitting\\nthe statements through Frusti.2\\n Even assuming, on the broadest reading of Rule 613(b), that\\nthe court should have allowed Frusti to be questioned about\\nVoecks’ statements once Voecks himself professed not to\\nremember making them, any error with respect to the restric-\\ntions imposed on cross-examination of Frusti—as well as\\nVoecks—was harmless. The jury certainly was aware that\\nVoecks gave multiple, contradictory statements to the police\\n\\n\\n2\\n By contrast, the defense did present Frusti with a transcript of the\\ninterrogation in order to refresh his recollection as to a point Frusti claimed\\nan inability to recall. R. 40 at 183.\\n\\f14 No. 17-3421\\n\\nwhich began with the claim that the gun belonged to him and\\nended with the claim that the gun belonged to Fernandez. It is\\ntrue that the defense was not able to elicit every detail of the\\nvarious accounts that Voecks had given to Frusti. (For exam-\\nple, in his first version, Voecks told Frusti that he had met the\\nman from whom he had obtained the gun at a methadone\\nclinic.) It is also true that the defense was not able to establish\\nthe particulars of what prompted Voecks to abandon his\\nsecond version (that he did not see anyone put the gun into the\\nfront-seat console of the car) for his third and final version (that\\nFernandez put the gun there). However, we are not convinced\\nthat such details were vital to the defense. The jury was fully\\naware that Voecks had first claimed the gun was his, but\\nduring the second interrogation had abandoned his first\\naccount and claimed the gun was Fernandez’s. Critically, the\\njury was also made aware of the fact that it was the warning\\nfrom Sergeant Morris that Voecks would be held to account for\\nany crimes connected to that gun which prompted Voecks to\\nreconsider the first story and agree to the second interview,\\nwhere he ultimately incriminated Fernandez. We can readily\\nappreciate that eliciting the specifics of what Frusti said to and\\nasked of Voecks, and what Voecks said in response, would\\ndemonstrate both Voecks’ facility with inventing details and\\nhis clumsiness in contradicting himself on such key points as\\nto whether he knew there was a gun in the center console of\\nthe car. The restrictions imposed on the cross-examinations of\\nVoecks and Frusti made it an unnecessarily difficult task for\\nthe defense to lay bare the full evolution and context of\\nVoecks’ statements regarding the .45 caliber pistol. But the\\ndefense nonetheless was able to establish the gist of the two\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 15\\n\\ncontradictory accounts of the gun’s ownership and the trigger\\nfor Voecks’ decision to abandon his original statement and\\nattribute possession of the gun to Fernandez. Defense counsel\\nmade full use of the (purportedly self-serving) evolution of\\nVoecks’ account in closing argument. R. 41 at 265–68.\\nFernandez has not shown us why any of the omitted details of\\nFrusti’s interrogations of Voecks mattered so much as to\\ndemonstrate reversible error. And although Fernandez did not\\ninvoke his Confrontation Clause rights below and arguably\\nforfeited any constitutional claim, for the sake of completeness,\\nwe note that his ability to raise the essential points as to\\nVoecks’ change of story defeats any claim of plain error in this\\nregard.\\nB. Admissibility of the text messages\\n Fernandez next contends that the district court erred in\\nprecluding him from questioning defense witness Stramowski\\nabout the content of the texts she had purportedly received\\nfrom Voecks in the run-up to the trial. Once Voecks was\\nconfronted with and essentially denied having sent those texts,\\nFernandez argues, he should have been permitted to introduce\\nextrinsic evidence of the texts in order to establish Voecks’ bias\\nagainst both Fernandez and Stramowski and his motive to\\ninculpate Fernandez at trial. The district court’s understanding\\nthat Rule 608(b) forbade extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior\\nstatements for these purposes was mistaken, he contends.3\\n\\n\\n3\\n In relevant part, Rule 608(b) provides: “Except for a criminal conviction\\nunder Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific\\ninstances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s\\n (continued...)\\n\\f16 No. 17-3421\\n\\n We do not disagree with Fernandez that evidence as to the\\ntexts, if they were indeed sent by Voecks, was admissible to\\nestablish Voecks’ bias and motive as a witness for the govern-\\nment. See United States v. DeMarco, supra, 784 F.3d at 394\\n(noting that Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) allows proof of specific\\ninstances of conduct to establish bias or prior inconsistent\\nstatement) (citing United States v. McGee, 408 F.3d 966, 981–82\\n(7th Cir. 2005)). Statements in the texts to the effect that both\\nFernandez and Stramowski were going to “get yours” and\\nthat, as between Fernandez and Voecks, only one was going to\\n“survive” and it was not going to be Fernandez, certainly\\ncould be understood to reflect that Voecks had an axe to grind\\nagainst Fernandez and a motive to help himself by testifying\\nfor the government at Fernandez’s expense. Once Voecks was\\nconfronted with the texts and effectively denied sending them,\\nthe door was opened to extrinsic evidence of the texts pursuant\\nto Rule 613(b), contrary to the district court’s understanding.\\nDeMarco, 784 F.3d at 394.\\n But for two reasons, we do not think the district court erred\\nin sustaining the government’s objections when the defense\\nbegan to ask Stramowski about these texts. First, when the\\nmatter of the texts was first raised with the district judge prior\\nto opening statements, Fernandez’s attorneys indicated that it\\nwas not their intent to establish the substance of the texts\\n\\n\\n3\\n (...continued)\\ncharacter for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow\\nthem to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthful-\\nness or untruthfulness of: (1) the witness; or (2) another witness whose\\ncharacter the witness being cross-examined has testified about. …\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 17\\n\\nthrough extrinsic evidence; instead, counsel simply wanted the\\nopportunity to question Voecks about the texts. R. 40 at 33, 35.\\nThe court readily acceded to that limited request. We inquired\\nat oral argument whether, after Voecks had been confronted\\nwith the texts and denied having sent them, defense counsel\\never argued to the court that circumstances had changed and\\nthat the defense should now be permitted to prove the exis-\\ntence and contents of the texts through extrinsic evidence.\\nCounsel answered that question in the negative. The district\\ncourt can hardly be faulted for barring evidence that the\\ndefense had disclaimed an intent to introduce.\\n Second, given the late hour at which the texts came to\\nlight—just as opening statements and the presentation of\\nevidence was about to begin—there was very little opportunity\\nfor either party to establish the authenticity of the texts. The\\ncourt rightly flagged the authenticity of the texts as a concern\\nfrom the start, and we may safely assume that it would have\\ntaken some amount of time to investigate this. But the presen-\\ntation of evidence at trial began and concluded on the same\\nday that the texts were first raised; and given that the defense\\nhad originally indicated it would be satisfied with the opportu-\\nnity to question Voecks about the texts, the government was\\nnot on notice that it needed to task someone to explore the\\nprovenance and authenticity of the texts. The district court was\\nthus well within its discretion to prohibit the defense from\\nattempting to provide the existence and content of the texts\\nthrough Stramowski.\\n\\f18 No. 17-3421\\n\\nC. Disclosure of Fernandez’s arrest on outstanding warrant\\n Finally, Fernandez contends that the district court erred in\\npermitting the government to establish that he was arrested\\nduring the November 2016 traffic stop on an outstanding\\nwarrant for a probation violation. The government argued, and\\nthe district court agreed, that the arrest was necessary to\\ncomplete the picture of what occurred during the stop and in\\nparticular to explain why Fernandez was loaded into the police\\nvan, which was when officer Graf heard him tell Voecks not to\\nworry about possession of a gun, because that was only a\\nmisdemeanor offense for Voecks. Fernandez contends that\\ndisclosure to the jury of his arrest and the reason for it amount-\\ned to evidence of a prior bad act that was not probative of his\\nguilt on the felon-in-possession charge, and that the court’s\\nrationale in allowing it tracks the “inextricably related”\\nrationale of which we disapproved in United States v. Gorman,\\n613 F.3d 711, 717–19 (7th Cir. 2010).\\n Any potential error in the court’s decision to admit this\\nevidence was harmless, however. Because having a prior\\nfelony conviction was an element of the offense with which\\nFernandez was charged, the jury was necessarily aware that he\\nhad a criminal record. See R. 28 ¶ 1; R. 40 at 189 (stipulation\\nthat Fernandez previously had been convicted of a felony\\noffense). That he was also arrested for a probation violation at\\nthe time of the traffic stop was a relatively benign fact. Given\\nthe limited purpose for which it was admitted, we are not\\nconvinced that disclosure of the arrest was unduly prejudicial\\nto Fernandez.\\n\\fNo. 17-3421 19\\n\\n III.\\n We AFFIRM the judgment.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":660,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4587569,"string":"4,587,569"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josue VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Josue Vargas"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1250"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Wood, Easterbrook, Kanne\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-1250\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nJOSUE VARGAS,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 14 CR 579 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and KANNE,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Convicted of two cocaine\\noffenses, 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1), Josue Vargas has been sen-\\ntenced to 72 months’ imprisonment. His principal appellate\\nargument is that the district judge should have suppressed\\npackages of that drug seized from his truck.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1250\\n\\n Vargas rented a parking place for his truck in a lot that\\nlacked assigned spaces. Agents in Ohio arrested Luis Hueter\\nas he transported three kilograms of cocaine that, Hueter as-\\nserted, he had purchased from Vargas the day before at his\\nparked truck. Hueter described Vargas, the truck, and the\\nlot. They immediately called agents in Illinois, who entered\\nthe lot by following someone through the gate. Approaching\\na truck that met Hueter’s description, the agents in Chicago\\nsent a photo to the agents in Ohio; Hueter identified the\\ntruck as Vargas’s. A dog was called in and alerted to the\\nodor of drugs. Agents then broke a window of the truck,\\nopened the door, and found eight more kilos of cocaine.\\n Vargas contends that the agents’ and the dog’s entry into\\nthe lot violated his rights. He does not say that it was im-\\nproper to break into the truck without a warrant; by the time\\nthe agents did this they had probable cause, based on\\nHueter’s statements plus confirmation (from the photo and\\nthe dog) that they had the right truck. But, citing Florida v.\\nJardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), and United States v. Jones, 565 U.S.\\n400 (2012), Vargas observes that an invasion of property is as\\nmuch within the Fourth Amendment as an invasion of pri-\\nvacy, and he insists that when the agents entered the lot they\\nlacked probable cause—and a parking lot is not a vehicle, so\\nthe agents could not benefit from the automobile exception\\nto the warrant requirement.\\n The argument is a dud, because Vargas neither owned\\nthe parking lot nor had a leasehold interest in any particular\\npart of it. Vargas was entitled to park his truck in any open\\nspace but not to exclude anyone else. Many other people al-\\nso parked there, and each could admit third parties. This is\\nwhy agents normally do not need probable cause or a war-\\n\\fNo. 18-1250 3\\n\\nrant to enter the vestibule of a multi-tenant building. See\\nUnited States v. Correa, 908 F.3d 208, 221–22 (7th Cir. 2018).\\n The only person whose property interest the agents in-\\nvaded was the lot’s owner, who isn’t complaining—and at\\nall events an invasion of the owner’s property (or privacy)\\nrights would not entitle Vargas to any remedy. Rights under\\nthe Fourth Amendment are personal; only someone whose\\nown rights have been transgressed is entitled to relief. See,\\ne.g., United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980); United States\\nv. Sweeney, 821 F.3d 893, 900 (7th Cir. 2016). No more need be\\nsaid about the search and seizure.\\n All of Vargas’s remaining arguments concern the conduct\\nof the trial. According to Vargas, the judge upbraided his\\nlawyer more often (and more sternly) than the prosecution’s\\nlawyer and erred in admiiing or excluding evidence. The\\ndistrict court considered and rejected these arguments when\\ndenying Vargas’s motion for a new trial. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\\n99021 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2016). Vargas hopes that we will find\\nthe contentions stronger than did the district judge.\\n Vargas presents almost all of his argument in constitu-\\ntional terms, asserting that the judge violated the Due Pro-\\ncess Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He mentions Fed. R.\\nEvid. 613 but in the main ignores both the Federal Rules of\\nEvidence and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He\\ndoes not maintain that any of these rules is unconstitutional\\nto the extent it allowed the judge to proceed as he did; in-\\nstead Vargas bypasses the rules in favor of the Constitution.\\nNor does he contend that the judge transgressed any super-\\nvisory rule laid down by the Supreme Court or by this court.\\nIt is, for him, the Constitution or nothing (the invocation of\\nRule 613 is so cursory that we need not discuss it), and the\\n\\f4 No. 18-1250\\n\\nConstitution at a high level of generality rather than any\\nconcrete rule of criminal procedure to be found in the Con-\\nfrontation Clause or anywhere else.\\n This is a hopeless strategy, because courts are obliged to\\nconsider statutory and rule-based arguments ahead of con-\\nstitutional ones. See, e.g., New York Transit Authority v. Beazer,\\n440 U.S. 568, 582–83 (1979). “Lawyers all too often invoke the\\nConstitution as if it were a panacea and bypass seemingly\\nmundane arguments based on statutes and regulations.\\nMimicking Gresham’s Law, flabby constitutional generalities\\ndrive out sound legal points.” Magala v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d\\n523, 526–27 (7th Cir. 2005). “Why counsel should start with\\nthe Constitution rather than the statutes and regulations that\\ngovern [these] proceedings is beyond us. Non-constitutional\\narguments always come first; constitutional contentions\\nmust be set aside until their resolution is unavoida-\\nble.” Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508 (7th Cir. 2006).\\n“Before taking up a constitutional issue, a federal court\\nshould satisfy itself that there is no available non-\\nconstitutional ground of decision.” There to Care, Inc. v.\\nCommissioner of the Indiana Department of Revenue, 19 F.3d\\n1165, 1167 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Spector Motor Service, Inc. v.\\nMcLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (1944)). See also BrockeL v. Spo-\\nkane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 501 (1985).\\n We illustrate this by considering one of Vargas’s eviden-\\ntiary arguments—the strongest one, as it seems to us, but\\none on which he has missed critical points.\\n During discovery, Vargas asked the prosecutor to identi-\\nfy any expert witnesses and describe the nature of the ex-\\nperts’ testimony. The prosecution made a reciprocal de-\\nmand. One potential witness identified by the prosecution\\n\\fNo. 18-1250 5\\n\\nwas Joseph Raschke, who would testify about how infor-\\nmation from cell towers could be used to locate Vargas and\\nHueter on the critical days. After the parties agreed to a\\nstipulation about cell-site evidence, the prosecution told the\\njudge that it would not call Raschke as a witness in its case-\\nin-chief. When Vargas tried to call Raschke in his own case,\\nthe prosecutor objected, because Vargas had not disclosed\\nRaschke as an expert for the defense or described the sub-\\njects of his testimony. The judge sustained the objection.\\nVargas now asserts that this was absurd—after all, the pros-\\necutor had to know what Raschke would have said on the\\nstand—and that absurd decisions must be unconstitutional.\\n Whether the judge erred depends not on the Due Process\\nClause but on Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C), which provides\\nthat at the prosecution’s request any defendant who has\\nmade an equivalent demand for expert disclosure must\\n“give to the government a wriien summary of any testimo-\\nny that the defense intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or\\n705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence … . This summary must\\ndescribe the witness’s opinions, the bases and reasons for\\nthose opinions, and the witness’s qualifications”. Vargas did\\nnot do this about Raschke; the omission is why the district\\njudge barred Vargas from calling Raschke at trial. And un-\\nless the defense plans to call an expert, already designated\\nby the prosecution, for exactly the maiers covered in the\\nprosecutor’s disclosure, it can’t be called absurd (let alone\\nunconstitutional) for the judge to enforce the Rule as wriien.\\nRule 16(b)(1)(C) thus sinks Vargas’s appellate argument un-\\nless courts have read this Rule, despite its text, as inapplica-\\nble to defendants who want to call witnesses already dis-\\nclosed by the prosecutor.\\n\\f6 No. 18-1250\\n\\n We could not find any decision holding that disclosure of\\nan expert by the prosecutor relieves the defense of a duty to\\nprovide its own disclosure, if the defense wants to call that\\nexpert. Nor could we find any decision in the other direction\\n(that is, we couldn’t find any decision holding that disclo-\\nsure by the defense relieved the prosecutor of its duty to dis-\\nclose the testimony that the same expert would give if called\\nby the prosecutor). The Rule is designed to ensure that each\\nside knows what an expert’s testimony would cover. See,\\ne.g., United States v. Bresil, 767 F.3d 124, 127 (1st Cir. 2014);\\nUnited States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 758 (4th Cir. 2002). The\\npossibility that one side will take an expert in a direction\\ndifferent from the other side’s planned destination affords a\\ngood reason why each must identify the potential “witness’s\\nopinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions”, no\\nmaier what the other side has disclosed.\\n Vargas has not addressed any of these subjects, because\\nhis brief does not mention Rule 16. When asked why at oral\\nargument, Vargas’s counsel asserted that no one pays any\\naiention to this Rule, so he did not need to bother. That is a\\nstaggering assertion. The prosecutor paid aiention; that’s\\nwhy an objection was made. The district judge enforced Rule\\n16 by sustaining the objection. And we enforce rules by in-\\nsisting that counsel address rather than ignore them. “There\\nis no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal\\ncase, and Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)] did not cre-\\nate one; as the Court wrote recently, ‘the Due Process Clause\\nhas liile to say regarding the amount of discovery which the\\nparties must be afforded … .’ Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470,\\n474 (1973).” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977).\\nSanctions for violating discovery rules also generally are\\nmaiers for the rules or statutes. See Michigan v. Lucas, 500\\n\\fNo. 18-1250 7\\n\\nU.S. 145 (1991) (judge entitled to exclude evidence after de-\\nfense failed to comply with a notice obligation). Only close\\naiention to Rule 16 might have offered Vargas a chance to\\nprevail.\\n None of Vargas’s other arguments requires discussion.\\nWe agree with him that the district judge should have been\\nmore even-handed (at least when the jury could overhear his\\nadmonitions to defense counsel), but neither on that subject\\nnor any other did the judge violate the Due Process Clause,\\nwhich in criminal cases deals with only egregious transgres-\\nsions of trial rules and decorum. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo,\\n416 U.S. 637 (1974).\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4364822/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587569/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josue VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-1250\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\nJOSUE VARGAS,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 14 CR 579 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and KANNE,\nCircuit Judges.\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Convicted of two cocaine\noffenses, 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1), Josue Vargas has been sen-\ntenced to 72 months’ imprisonment. His principal appellate\nargument is that the district judge should have suppressed\npackages of that drug seized from his truck.\n\f2 No. 18-1250\n\n Vargas rented a parking place for his truck in a lot that\nlacked assigned spaces. Agents in Ohio arrested Luis Hueter\nas he transported three kilograms of cocaine that, Hueter as-\nserted, he had purchased from Vargas the day before at his\nparked truck. Hueter described Vargas, the truck, and the\nlot. They immediately called agents in Illinois, who entered\nthe lot by following someone through the gate. Approaching\na truck that met Hueter’s description, the agents in Chicago\nsent a photo to the agents in Ohio; Hueter identified the\ntruck as Vargas’s. A dog was called in and alerted to the\nodor of drugs. Agents then broke a window of the truck,\nopened the door, and found eight more kilos of cocaine.\n Vargas contends that the agents’ and the dog’s entry into\nthe lot violated his rights. He does not say that it was im-\nproper to break into the truck without a warrant; by the time\nthe agents did this they had probable cause, based on\nHueter’s statements plus confirmation (from the photo and\nthe dog) that they had the right truck. But, citing Florida v.\nJardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), and United States v. Jones, 565 U.S.\n400 (2012), Vargas observes that an invasion of property is as\nmuch within the Fourth Amendment as an invasion of pri-\nvacy, and he insists that when the agents entered the lot they\nlacked probable cause—and a parking lot is not a vehicle, so\nthe agents could not benefit from the automobile exception\nto the warrant requirement.\n The argument is a dud, because Vargas neither owned\nthe parking lot nor had a leasehold interest in any particular\npart of it. Vargas was entitled to park his truck in any open\nspace but not to exclude anyone else. Many other people al-\nso parked there, and each could admit third parties. This is\nwhy agents normally do not need probable cause or a war-\n\fNo. 18-1250 3\n\nrant to enter the vestibule of a multi-tenant building. See\nUnited States v. Correa, 908 F.3d 208, 221–22 (7th Cir. 2018).\n The only person whose property interest the agents in-\nvaded was the lot’s owner, who isn’t complaining—and at\nall events an invasion of the owner’s property (or privacy)\nrights would not entitle Vargas to any remedy. Rights under\nthe Fourth Amendment are personal; only someone whose\nown rights have been transgressed is entitled to relief. See,\ne.g., United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980); United States\nv. Sweeney, 821 F.3d 893, 900 (7th Cir. 2016). No more need be\nsaid about the search and seizure.\n All of Vargas’s remaining arguments concern the conduct\nof the trial. According to Vargas, the judge upbraided his\nlawyer more often (and more sternly) than the prosecution’s\nlawyer and erred in admiiing or excluding evidence. The\ndistrict court considered and rejected these arguments when\ndenying Vargas’s motion for a new trial. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n99021 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2016). Vargas hopes that we will find\nthe contentions stronger than did the district judge.\n Vargas presents almost all of his argument in constitu-\ntional terms, asserting that the judge violated the Due Pro-\ncess Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He mentions Fed. R.\nEvid. 613 but in the main ignores both the Federal Rules of\nEvidence and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He\ndoes not maintain that any of these rules is unconstitutional\nto the extent it allowed the judge to proceed as he did; in-\nstead Vargas bypasses the rules in favor of the Constitution.\nNor does he contend that the judge transgressed any super-\nvisory rule laid down by the Supreme Court or by this court.\nIt is, for him, the Constitution or nothing (the invocation of\nRule 613 is so cursory that we need not discuss it), and the\n\f4 No. 18-1250\n\nConstitution at a high level of generality rather than any\nconcrete rule of criminal procedure to be found in the Con-\nfrontation Clause or anywhere else.\n This is a hopeless strategy, because courts are obliged to\nconsider statutory and rule-based arguments ahead of con-\nstitutional ones. See, e.g., New York Transit Authority v. Beazer,\n440 U.S. 568, 582–83 (1979). “Lawyers all too often invoke the\nConstitution as if it were a panacea and bypass seemingly\nmundane arguments based on statutes and regulations.\nMimicking Gresham’s Law, flabby constitutional generalities\ndrive out sound legal points.” Magala v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d\n523, 526–27 (7th Cir. 2005). “Why counsel should start with\nthe Constitution rather than the statutes and regulations that\ngovern [these] proceedings is beyond us. Non-constitutional\narguments always come first; constitutional contentions\nmust be set aside until their resolution is unavoida-\nble.” Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508 (7th Cir. 2006).\n“Before taking up a constitutional issue, a federal court\nshould satisfy itself that there is no available non-\nconstitutional ground of decision.” There to Care, Inc. v.\nCommissioner of the Indiana Department of Revenue, 19 F.3d\n1165, 1167 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Spector Motor Service, Inc. v.\nMcLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (1944)). See also BrockeL v. Spo-\nkane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 501 (1985).\n We illustrate this by considering one of Vargas’s eviden-\ntiary arguments—the strongest one, as it seems to us, but\none on which he has missed critical points.\n During discovery, Vargas asked the prosecutor to identi-\nfy any expert witnesses and describe the nature of the ex-\nperts’ testimony. The prosecution made a reciprocal de-\nmand. One potential witness identified by the prosecution\n\fNo. 18-1250 5\n\nwas Joseph Raschke, who would testify about how infor-\nmation from cell towers could be used to locate Vargas and\nHueter on the critical days. After the parties agreed to a\nstipulation about cell-site evidence, the prosecution told the\njudge that it would not call Raschke as a witness in its case-\nin-chief. When Vargas tried to call Raschke in his own case,\nthe prosecutor objected, because Vargas had not disclosed\nRaschke as an expert for the defense or described the sub-\njects of his testimony. The judge sustained the objection.\nVargas now asserts that this was absurd—after all, the pros-\necutor had to know what Raschke would have said on the\nstand—and that absurd decisions must be unconstitutional.\n Whether the judge erred depends not on the Due Process\nClause but on Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C), which provides\nthat at the prosecution’s request any defendant who has\nmade an equivalent demand for expert disclosure must\n“give to the government a wriien summary of any testimo-\nny that the defense intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or\n705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence … . This summary must\ndescribe the witness’s opinions, the bases and reasons for\nthose opinions, and the witness’s qualifications”. Vargas did\nnot do this about Raschke; the omission is why the district\njudge barred Vargas from calling Raschke at trial. And un-\nless the defense plans to call an expert, already designated\nby the prosecution, for exactly the maiers covered in the\nprosecutor’s disclosure, it can’t be called absurd (let alone\nunconstitutional) for the judge to enforce the Rule as wriien.\nRule 16(b)(1)(C) thus sinks Vargas’s appellate argument un-\nless courts have read this Rule, despite its text, as inapplica-\nble to defendants who want to call witnesses already dis-\nclosed by the prosecutor.\n\f6 No. 18-1250\n\n We could not find any decision holding that disclosure of\nan expert by the prosecutor relieves the defense of a duty to\nprovide its own disclosure, if the defense wants to call that\nexpert. Nor could we find any decision in the other direction\n(that is, we couldn’t find any decision holding that disclo-\nsure by the defense relieved the prosecutor of its duty to dis-\nclose the testimony that the same expert would give if called\nby the prosecutor). The Rule is designed to ensure that each\nside knows what an expert’s testimony would cover. See,\ne.g., United States v. Bresil, 767 F.3d 124, 127 (1st Cir. 2014);\nUnited States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 758 (4th Cir. 2002). The\npossibility that one side will take an expert in a direction\ndifferent from the other side’s planned destination affords a\ngood reason why each must identify the potential “witness’s\nopinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions”, no\nmaier what the other side has disclosed.\n Vargas has not addressed any of these subjects, because\nhis brief does not mention Rule 16. When asked why at oral\nargument, Vargas’s counsel asserted that no one pays any\naiention to this Rule, so he did not need to bother. That is a\nstaggering assertion. The prosecutor paid aiention; that’s\nwhy an objection was made. The district judge enforced Rule\n16 by sustaining the objection. And we enforce rules by in-\nsisting that counsel address rather than ignore them. “There\nis no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal\ncase, and Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)] did not cre-\nate one; as the Court wrote recently, ‘the Due Process Clause\nhas liile to say regarding the amount of discovery which the\nparties must be afforded … .’ Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470,\n474 (1973).” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977).\nSanctions for violating discovery rules also generally are\nmaiers for the rules or statutes. See Michigan v. Lucas, 500\n\fNo. 18-1250 7\n\nU.S. 145 (1991) (judge entitled to exclude evidence after de-\nfense failed to comply with a notice obligation). Only close\naiention to Rule 16 might have offered Vargas a chance to\nprevail.\n None of Vargas’s other arguments requires discussion.\nWe agree with him that the district judge should have been\nmore even-handed (at least when the jury could overhear his\nadmonitions to defense counsel), but neither on that subject\nnor any other did the judge violate the Due Process Clause,\nwhich in criminal cases deals with only egregious transgres-\nsions of trial rules and decorum. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo,\n416 U.S. 637 (1974).\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josue VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-1250\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nJOSUE VARGAS,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 14 CR 579 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and KANNE,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Convicted of two cocaine\\noffenses, 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1), Josue Vargas has been sen-\\ntenced to 72 months’ imprisonment. His principal appellate\\nargument is that the district judge should have suppressed\\npackages of that drug seized from his truck.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1250\\n\\n Vargas rented a parking place for his truck in a lot that\\nlacked assigned spaces. Agents in Ohio arrested Luis Hueter\\nas he transported three kilograms of cocaine that, Hueter as-\\nserted, he had purchased from Vargas the day before at his\\nparked truck. Hueter described Vargas, the truck, and the\\nlot. They immediately called agents in Illinois, who entered\\nthe lot by following someone through the gate. Approaching\\na truck that met Hueter’s description, the agents in Chicago\\nsent a photo to the agents in Ohio; Hueter identified the\\ntruck as Vargas’s. A dog was called in and alerted to the\\nodor of drugs. Agents then broke a window of the truck,\\nopened the door, and found eight more kilos of cocaine.\\n Vargas contends that the agents’ and the dog’s entry into\\nthe lot violated his rights. He does not say that it was im-\\nproper to break into the truck without a warrant; by the time\\nthe agents did this they had probable cause, based on\\nHueter’s statements plus confirmation (from the photo and\\nthe dog) that they had the right truck. But, citing Florida v.\\nJardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), and United States v. Jones, 565 U.S.\\n400 (2012), Vargas observes that an invasion of property is as\\nmuch within the Fourth Amendment as an invasion of pri-\\nvacy, and he insists that when the agents entered the lot they\\nlacked probable cause—and a parking lot is not a vehicle, so\\nthe agents could not benefit from the automobile exception\\nto the warrant requirement.\\n The argument is a dud, because Vargas neither owned\\nthe parking lot nor had a leasehold interest in any particular\\npart of it. Vargas was entitled to park his truck in any open\\nspace but not to exclude anyone else. Many other people al-\\nso parked there, and each could admit third parties. This is\\nwhy agents normally do not need probable cause or a war-\\n\\fNo. 18-1250 3\\n\\nrant to enter the vestibule of a multi-tenant building. See\\nUnited States v. Correa, 908 F.3d 208, 221–22 (7th Cir. 2018).\\n The only person whose property interest the agents in-\\nvaded was the lot’s owner, who isn’t complaining—and at\\nall events an invasion of the owner’s property (or privacy)\\nrights would not entitle Vargas to any remedy. Rights under\\nthe Fourth Amendment are personal; only someone whose\\nown rights have been transgressed is entitled to relief. See,\\ne.g., United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980); United States\\nv. Sweeney, 821 F.3d 893, 900 (7th Cir. 2016). No more need be\\nsaid about the search and seizure.\\n All of Vargas’s remaining arguments concern the conduct\\nof the trial. According to Vargas, the judge upbraided his\\nlawyer more often (and more sternly) than the prosecution’s\\nlawyer and erred in admiiing or excluding evidence. The\\ndistrict court considered and rejected these arguments when\\ndenying Vargas’s motion for a new trial. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\\n99021 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2016). Vargas hopes that we will find\\nthe contentions stronger than did the district judge.\\n Vargas presents almost all of his argument in constitu-\\ntional terms, asserting that the judge violated the Due Pro-\\ncess Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He mentions Fed. R.\\nEvid. 613 but in the main ignores both the Federal Rules of\\nEvidence and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He\\ndoes not maintain that any of these rules is unconstitutional\\nto the extent it allowed the judge to proceed as he did; in-\\nstead Vargas bypasses the rules in favor of the Constitution.\\nNor does he contend that the judge transgressed any super-\\nvisory rule laid down by the Supreme Court or by this court.\\nIt is, for him, the Constitution or nothing (the invocation of\\nRule 613 is so cursory that we need not discuss it), and the\\n\\f4 No. 18-1250\\n\\nConstitution at a high level of generality rather than any\\nconcrete rule of criminal procedure to be found in the Con-\\nfrontation Clause or anywhere else.\\n This is a hopeless strategy, because courts are obliged to\\nconsider statutory and rule-based arguments ahead of con-\\nstitutional ones. See, e.g., New York Transit Authority v. Beazer,\\n440 U.S. 568, 582–83 (1979). “Lawyers all too often invoke the\\nConstitution as if it were a panacea and bypass seemingly\\nmundane arguments based on statutes and regulations.\\nMimicking Gresham’s Law, flabby constitutional generalities\\ndrive out sound legal points.” Magala v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d\\n523, 526–27 (7th Cir. 2005). “Why counsel should start with\\nthe Constitution rather than the statutes and regulations that\\ngovern [these] proceedings is beyond us. Non-constitutional\\narguments always come first; constitutional contentions\\nmust be set aside until their resolution is unavoida-\\nble.” Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508 (7th Cir. 2006).\\n“Before taking up a constitutional issue, a federal court\\nshould satisfy itself that there is no available non-\\nconstitutional ground of decision.” There to Care, Inc. v.\\nCommissioner of the Indiana Department of Revenue, 19 F.3d\\n1165, 1167 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Spector Motor Service, Inc. v.\\nMcLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (1944)). See also BrockeL v. Spo-\\nkane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 501 (1985).\\n We illustrate this by considering one of Vargas’s eviden-\\ntiary arguments—the strongest one, as it seems to us, but\\none on which he has missed critical points.\\n During discovery, Vargas asked the prosecutor to identi-\\nfy any expert witnesses and describe the nature of the ex-\\nperts’ testimony. The prosecution made a reciprocal de-\\nmand. One potential witness identified by the prosecution\\n\\fNo. 18-1250 5\\n\\nwas Joseph Raschke, who would testify about how infor-\\nmation from cell towers could be used to locate Vargas and\\nHueter on the critical days. After the parties agreed to a\\nstipulation about cell-site evidence, the prosecution told the\\njudge that it would not call Raschke as a witness in its case-\\nin-chief. When Vargas tried to call Raschke in his own case,\\nthe prosecutor objected, because Vargas had not disclosed\\nRaschke as an expert for the defense or described the sub-\\njects of his testimony. The judge sustained the objection.\\nVargas now asserts that this was absurd—after all, the pros-\\necutor had to know what Raschke would have said on the\\nstand—and that absurd decisions must be unconstitutional.\\n Whether the judge erred depends not on the Due Process\\nClause but on Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C), which provides\\nthat at the prosecution’s request any defendant who has\\nmade an equivalent demand for expert disclosure must\\n“give to the government a wriien summary of any testimo-\\nny that the defense intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or\\n705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence … . This summary must\\ndescribe the witness’s opinions, the bases and reasons for\\nthose opinions, and the witness’s qualifications”. Vargas did\\nnot do this about Raschke; the omission is why the district\\njudge barred Vargas from calling Raschke at trial. And un-\\nless the defense plans to call an expert, already designated\\nby the prosecution, for exactly the maiers covered in the\\nprosecutor’s disclosure, it can’t be called absurd (let alone\\nunconstitutional) for the judge to enforce the Rule as wriien.\\nRule 16(b)(1)(C) thus sinks Vargas’s appellate argument un-\\nless courts have read this Rule, despite its text, as inapplica-\\nble to defendants who want to call witnesses already dis-\\nclosed by the prosecutor.\\n\\f6 No. 18-1250\\n\\n We could not find any decision holding that disclosure of\\nan expert by the prosecutor relieves the defense of a duty to\\nprovide its own disclosure, if the defense wants to call that\\nexpert. Nor could we find any decision in the other direction\\n(that is, we couldn’t find any decision holding that disclo-\\nsure by the defense relieved the prosecutor of its duty to dis-\\nclose the testimony that the same expert would give if called\\nby the prosecutor). The Rule is designed to ensure that each\\nside knows what an expert’s testimony would cover. See,\\ne.g., United States v. Bresil, 767 F.3d 124, 127 (1st Cir. 2014);\\nUnited States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 758 (4th Cir. 2002). The\\npossibility that one side will take an expert in a direction\\ndifferent from the other side’s planned destination affords a\\ngood reason why each must identify the potential “witness’s\\nopinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions”, no\\nmaier what the other side has disclosed.\\n Vargas has not addressed any of these subjects, because\\nhis brief does not mention Rule 16. When asked why at oral\\nargument, Vargas’s counsel asserted that no one pays any\\naiention to this Rule, so he did not need to bother. That is a\\nstaggering assertion. The prosecutor paid aiention; that’s\\nwhy an objection was made. The district judge enforced Rule\\n16 by sustaining the objection. And we enforce rules by in-\\nsisting that counsel address rather than ignore them. “There\\nis no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal\\ncase, and Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)] did not cre-\\nate one; as the Court wrote recently, ‘the Due Process Clause\\nhas liile to say regarding the amount of discovery which the\\nparties must be afforded … .’ Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470,\\n474 (1973).” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977).\\nSanctions for violating discovery rules also generally are\\nmaiers for the rules or statutes. See Michigan v. Lucas, 500\\n\\fNo. 18-1250 7\\n\\nU.S. 145 (1991) (judge entitled to exclude evidence after de-\\nfense failed to comply with a notice obligation). Only close\\naiention to Rule 16 might have offered Vargas a chance to\\nprevail.\\n None of Vargas’s other arguments requires discussion.\\nWe agree with him that the district judge should have been\\nmore even-handed (at least when the jury could overhear his\\nadmonitions to defense counsel), but neither on that subject\\nnor any other did the judge violate the Due Process Clause,\\nwhich in criminal cases deals with only egregious transgres-\\nsions of trial rules and decorum. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo,\\n416 U.S. 637 (1974).\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":661,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4587570,"string":"4,587,570"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Jeryme MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Minh SCHOTT, Tim Veath, and Hudson Maynard, Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Jeryme Morgan v. Minh Schott"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"16-2384"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Kanne, Sykes, Eve\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Diane S. Sykes\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 16-2384\\nJERYME MORGAN,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nMINH SCHOTT, TIM VEATH,\\nand HUDSON MAYNARD,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Illinois.\\n No. 13-cv-0881-SCW — Stephen C. Williams, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Illinois prison officials issued a dis-\\nciplinary report charging inmate Jeryme Morgan with\\noffenses stemming from a violent assault on fellow prison-\\ners. Morgan disputed the charges and asked the authorities\\nto call a witness to testify at his Adjustment Committee\\nhearing. But the Committee never called Morgan’s witness.\\nHe was found guilty and the Committee imposed punish-\\n\\f2 No. 16-2384\\n\\nment of one year of segregation, various status and access\\nrestrictions, and revocation of three months of good-time\\ncredits. Morgan filed a grievance challenging his punish-\\nment on due-process grounds and appealed its subsequent\\ndenial to the Administrative Review Board (“the Board”).\\nThe Board adjusted the revocation of good-time credits to\\none month but affirmed the Committee’s due-process ruling,\\nconcluding that Morgan’s witness request did not comply\\nwith prison rules.\\n Alleging a raft of constitutional violations, Morgan sued\\nthree officers for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming\\nthat the failure to call his witness violated his right to due\\nprocess. The officers moved for summary judgment citing\\nthe favorable-termination rule announced in Heck v.\\nHumphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Heck holds that “when a state\\nprisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court\\nmust consider whether a judgment in [his] favor … would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sen-\\ntence.” Id. at 487. Where a favorable judgment would have\\nthat effect, no § 1983 claim has accrued and “the complaint\\nmust be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that\\nthe conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id.\\nMorgan countered that Heck is inapplicable due to his waiv-\\ner of all claims relating to the revocation of his good-time\\ncredits. A magistrate judge rejected Morgan’s attempt to skirt\\nHeck and ruled that his due-process claim was not cogniza-\\nble under § 1983.\\n We affirm. Prisoners cannot make an end run around\\nHeck by filing an affidavit waiving challenges to the portion\\nof their punishment that revokes good-time credits. We\\nrecently addressed that very tactic and found it incompatible\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 3\\n\\nwith the Heck line of cases. Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d\\n1026 (7th Cir. 2016). Morgan provides no reason to question\\nHaywood, and we reaffirm its reasoning. Morgan’s attempt to\\nanalogize his case to Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005),\\nand Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011), misunderstands\\nthose decisions. Judgment in Morgan’s favor would neces-\\nsarily imply the invalidity of his prison discipline. Thus, no\\n§ 1983 claim has accrued. This suit is premature and must be\\ndismissed without prejudice.\\n I. Background\\n Morgan is serving sentences for robbery, armed robbery,\\nand sexual assault. For most of his incarceration—and at all\\ntimes relevant to this case—he has been housed at Menard\\nCorrectional Center (“Menard”). In January 2012 Officer\\nHudson Maynard issued a disciplinary report accusing\\nMorgan of taking part in an assault that occurred three\\nmonths earlier in Menard’s east yard. The report charged\\nMorgan with conspiring to attack the victims, joining the\\nattack, possessing dangerous contraband, causing a disturb-\\nance, interfering with prison investigations, and engaging in\\nunauthorized organizational activities.\\n Menard gives prisoners an opportunity to formally re-\\nquest witnesses at a disciplinary hearing; the disciplinary\\nreport provides a space to do so. If called, those witnesses\\ntestify at the prisoner’s Adjustment Committee hearing.\\nMorgan’s request was not a model of clarity. On the line\\nrequesting a description of the subject of the witness’s testi-\\nmony, Morgan wrote the name “James Lewis” followed by\\nthe words “where abouts.” On the line reserved for the\\nwitness’s name and other identifying information, Morgan\\nagain wrote “James Lewis” but nothing else.\\n\\f4 No. 16-2384\\n\\n At Morgan’s Adjustment Committee hearing on\\nJanuary 31, prison officials did not call James Lewis. The\\nCommittee, which included Lieutenant Minh Schott and\\nOfficer Tim Veath, found Morgan guilty and recommended\\nrevoking three months of good-time credits and adding one\\nyear of segregation, one year of lowered status, and several\\naccess restrictions. Morgan filed a grievance arguing that the\\nCommittee’s failure to call Lewis violated his right to due\\nprocess. Morgan’s grievance was denied, so he appealed to\\nthe Board. The Board ruled that Morgan’s witness request\\ndid not meet the minimum requirements under prison rules.\\nIllinois regulations require that such requests “shall be in\\nwriting on the space provided in the disciplinary report and\\nshall include an explanation of what the witnesses would\\nstate.” ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 20, § 504.80(f)(2). Because\\nMorgan failed to adequately identify his witness or describe\\nhis testimony, and because officials failed to locate a James\\nLewis at Menard, the Board concluded that Morgan’s hear-\\ning comported with due process.\\n Rather than challenge the Board’s ruling in state court,\\nMorgan filed a pro se complaint in the Southern District of\\nIllinois seeking damages under § 1983. He alleged numerous\\nconstitutional violations ranging from excessive force to\\ndeliberate indifference. Those claims were severed and\\nproceeded as a separate case. The district court did not\\ninitially identify a due-process claim in Morgan’s complaint.\\nHowever, a magistrate judge later found that Morgan had\\nadequately alleged a violation of due process against\\nLieutenant Schott and Officer Veath based on the Commit-\\ntee’s failure to call James Lewis. Schott and Veath moved for\\nsummary judgment, arguing that Morgan’s claim was barred\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 5\\n\\nby Heck, no reasonable jury could find a constitutional\\nviolation, and qualified immunity applies.\\n As part of Morgan’s strategy to avoid the Heck bar, he\\nfiled an affidavit purporting to “abandon any and all present\\nand future challenges” and “waiv[e] for all times all claims”\\npertaining to the portion of his punishment that impacted\\nthe duration of his confinement. He preserved only “claims\\nchallenging the sanctions affecting the conditions of [his]\\nconfinement.” Morgan argued that his affidavit rendered\\nHeck inapplicable, citing the Second Circuit’s decision in\\nPeralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2006).\\n The magistrate judge concluded that Heck barred\\nMorgan’s suit and entered summary judgment for Schott\\nand Veath, dismissing Morgan’s due-process claim with\\nprejudice. The judge rejected Morgan’s attempt to use strate-\\ngic waiver to “dodge” Heck. He said Morgan’s due-process\\nclaim “call[s] into question the validity of the prison disci-\\npline[] because to accept that claim necessarily implie[s] that\\nthe discipline was somehow invalid.”\\n II. Discussion\\n We review a summary judgment de novo, reading the\\nrecord in the light most favorable to Morgan and drawing all\\nreasonable inferences in his favor. Tolliver v. City of Chicago,\\n820 F.3d 237, 241 (7th Cir. 2016). Morgan renews his strate-\\ngic-waiver argument in an effort to avoid the Heck bar. He\\nalso attempts to evade Heck by arguing that success on the\\nmerits would mean at most a new hearing, not a reduction\\nof his term of imprisonment.\\n We begin with an overview of the favorable-termination\\nrule established in Heck v. Humphrey. Federal law affords\\n\\f6 No. 16-2384\\n\\nstate prisoners two venerable gateways to relief: the Civil\\nRights Act of 1871, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and habeas\\ncorpus review of state adjudications under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.\\nThey are not interchangeable. The Supreme Court made this\\nfact crystal clear in a line of cases barring § 1983 suits predi-\\ncated on claims reserved for habeas challenges. In Preiser v.\\nRodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 476 (1973), the Court evaluated a\\n§ 1983 claim attacking prison discipline proceedings on\\nconstitutional grounds and seeking restoration of good-time\\ncredits. The Court explained that habeas corpus—not\\n§ 1983—is the “specific instrument to obtain release” from\\nunlawful imprisonment. Id. at 486. Thus, when a prisoner\\nchallenges “the fact or duration of his confinement,” he fails\\nto state a cognizable § 1983 claim. Id. at 489.\\n The Court expanded on Preiser in Heck v. Humphrey,\\n512 U.S. at 486–87, in which the prisoner–plaintiff sought\\ndamages for wrongful conviction. Heck claimed that Indiana\\nprosecutors had destroyed exculpatory evidence and en-\\ngaged in an “unlawful, unreasonable, and arbitrary investi-\\ngation.” Id. at 479. The Court held that\\n in order to recover damages for [an] allegedly\\n unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,\\n or for other harm caused by actions whose un-\\n lawfulness would render a conviction or sen-\\n tence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that\\n the conviction or sentence has been reversed\\n on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\\n declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized\\n to make such determination, or called into\\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\\n of habeas corpus.\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 7\\n\\nId. at 486–87. The Court distinguished Wolff v. McDonnell,\\n418 U.S. 539 (1974), in which there was no “reason to be-\\nlieve[] that using the wrong procedures necessarily vitiated\\nthe denial of good-time credits.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 483. Con-\\nversely, a judgment in Heck’s favor would “necessarily\\nimply the invalidity of [Heck’s] conviction or sentence.” Id. at\\n487. When a judgment for the plaintiff would have that\\neffect, no § 1983 claim accrues until the plaintiff succeeds in\\ninvalidating the underlying conviction or sentence.\\n The Court extended Heck to the prison-discipline context\\nin Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). Balisok alleged that\\nthe presiding officer at his conduct hearing was biased and\\ndeprived him of the opportunity to present exculpatory\\nwitness testimony. Id. at 643. Some of Balisok’s good-time\\ncredits were revoked. He did not challenge the result of the\\nproceeding or the punishment he received. Instead, he\\nclaimed in a § 1983 suit that he was deprived of due process.\\nId. at 645. The Court held that judgment for Balisok would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of his disciplinary sentence.\\nId. at 648. The Court reasoned that denial of the opportunity\\nto present witnesses was “an obvious procedural defect, and\\nstate and federal courts have reinstated good-time credits\\n(absent a new hearing) when it is established.” Id. at 647.\\nThus, Heck’s favorable-termination rule applied. Id. at 648.\\nA. Strategic Waiver\\n Morgan argues that challenges to the conditions of a pris-\\noner’s confinement—as opposed to the duration of that\\nconfinement—do not implicate Heck, so a prisoner should be\\npermitted to challenge a disciplinary proceeding via § 1983 if\\nhe waives all challenges to duration-of-confinement sanc-\\n\\f8 No. 16-2384\\n\\ntions. Morgan’s is not a novel argument. We have rejected it\\nbefore and see no reason to change course.\\n When an inmate is found guilty of a disciplinary viola-\\ntion, prison officials can apply sanctions reducing the in-\\nmate’s privileges within the facility. They can also revoke\\ngood-time credits, a sanction that has the effect of lengthen-\\ning the inmate’s term of confinement. Morgan relies on\\nPeralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98, in which the Second Circuit\\nconsidered the mixed-sanctions scenario and chose to em-\\nbrace strategic waiver as a means of removing the Heck bar.\\nThe court held that a prisoner facing condition-of-\\nconfinement sanctions and duration-of-confinement sanc-\\ntions could challenge the former under § 1983 without\\ncomplying with Heck’s favorable-termination requirement.\\nId. at 104. All the prisoner must do is “abandon, not just now,\\nbut also in any future proceeding, any claims he may have\\nwith respect to the duration of his confinement that arise out\\nof the proceeding he is attacking.” Id.\\n We rejected Peralta in Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026.\\nThe approach Morgan urges us to adopt rests on a misun-\\nderstanding of Heck. The favorable-termination rule is more\\nthan a procedural hurdle that plaintiffs can skirt with artful\\ncomplaint drafting or opportunistic affidavits. Rather, it is\\ngrounded in substantive concerns about allowing conflicting\\njudgments. As we explained in Haywood, the Heck rule is “a\\nversion of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), under which\\nthe outstanding criminal judgment or disciplinary sanction,\\nas long as it stands, blocks any inconsistent civil judgment.”\\n842 F.3d at 1029. Neither Peralta nor Morgan can account for\\nthis aspect of Heck.\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 9\\n\\n Endorsing Morgan’s arguments would undercut another\\nfeature of the Court’s favorable-termination jurisprudence.\\nHeck held that “a § 1983 cause of action for damages at-\\ntributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does\\nnot accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invali-\\ndated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90 (emphasis added). Morgan’s\\nargument is incompatible with that holding. If a prisoner’s\\nchallenge to a disciplinary hearing implies the invalidity of\\nthe resulting sanctions, no § 1983 claim has accrued. And\\n“[i]f the claim has not accrued, it cannot matter what relief a\\nprisoner seeks.” Haywood, 842 F.3d at 1028. Selective waiver\\nsimply doesn’t alter the analysis.\\n Morgan concedes that Haywood controls his case and asks\\nus to overrule it. But we do not reverse our precedents\\nlightly; we need “compelling reasons” to do so. Russ v.\\nWatts, 414 F.3d 783, 788 (7th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court\\nhas not cast doubt on Haywood, and it does not represent a\\nminority approach among our sister circuits. See Glaser v.\\nWound Care Consultants, Inc., 570 F.3d 907, 915 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(discussing circumstances in which we reconsider our\\nprecedents). Moreover, we remain convinced that “Peralta is\\nincompatible with Heck and its successors.” Haywood,\\n842 F.3d at 1030. State prisoners cannot avoid the favorable-\\ntermination rule by engaging in strategic waiver. If judgment\\nfor a § 1983 plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity\\nof his punishment, the Heck rule applies and favorable\\ntermination of the underlying proceeding is a prerequisite to\\nrelief. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004).\\nB. Dotson and Skinner\\n Morgan also compares his case to Wilkinson v. Dotson,\\n544 U.S. 74 (2005), and Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011),\\n\\f10 No. 16-2384\\n\\nbut the analogy is inapt. In Dotson the Court dealt with two\\n§ 1983 suits challenging the retroactivity of certain state\\nparole-hearing procedures on due-process grounds. The\\nplaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction order-\\ning parole hearings under a different set of rules. Dotson,\\n544 U.S. at 76–77. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims\\nwere cognizable under § 1983 because success would mean\\n“new [parole] eligibility review” for one plaintiff and “a new\\nparole hearing” for the other, neither of which would “nec-\\nessarily spell immediate or speedier release” or imply the\\ninvalidity of their sentences. Id. at 81 (emphasis omitted). In\\nSkinner the Court allowed a Texas prisoner to seek postcon-\\nviction DNA testing using a § 1983 suit because “[s]uccess …\\ngains for the prisoner only access to the DNA evidence,\\nwhich may prove exculpatory, inculpatory, or inconclusive.”\\n562 U.S. at 525. Thus, judgment for the plaintiff wouldn’t\\nnecessarily imply unlawful confinement by the State.\\n It’s not clear that Morgan made this argument below. But\\nin the interest of completeness, we address it here. Morgan\\nmisses a key distinction between his case and Dotson and\\nSkinner—a distinction we’ve discussed before. See Burd v.\\nSessler, 702 F.3d 429, 432–34 (7th Cir. 2012). The plaintiffs in\\nDotson and Skinner sought purely prospective relief: parole\\nhearings under different rules in Dotson; DNA testing in\\nSkinner. As we explained in Burd, the Dotson and Skinner\\nplaintiffs sought entirely forward-looking relief: access to\\n“procedural pathways that, if successfully employed, might\\n[have led] to the overturning of the underlying conviction.”\\nBurd, 702 F.3d at 433 (emphasis added). Judgment for those\\nplaintiffs would not have implied the invalidity of their\\nconvictions or sentences.\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 11\\n\\n Morgan’s claim, in contrast, is entirely backward looking.\\nHe alleges a due-process violation at the hearing that gener-\\nated his disciplinary sanctions. A damages judgment for\\nMorgan would amount to a judicial determination that\\nprison officials infringed Morgan’s constitutional rights by\\nfailing to call a witness in his defense, rendering the pro-\\nceeding unfair. Such a judgment would straightforwardly\\nimply the invalidity of his punishment, triggering Heck’s\\nfavorable-termination rule. Balisok, 520 U.S. at 648; see also\\nLusz v. Scott, 126 F.3d 1018, 1022 (7th Cir. 1997) (applying the\\nHeck bar where the plaintiff argued “that he was denied the\\nopportunity to call requested witnesses in his favor”). We’ve\\nclarified before that “‘[i]mply’ is not synonymous with\\n‘invalidate.’” Hill v. Murphy, 785 F.3d 242, 248 (7th Cir. 2015).\\nJudgment in Morgan’s favor would allow him “to argue that\\nhe had been determined by a court to have been unjustly”\\npunished—an outcome that “Heck forbids.” Id.\\n Morgan argues that Illinois regulations make all the dif-\\nference. By rule, “[t]he Director, Deputy Director or Chief\\nAdministrative Officer shall remand the decision to the\\nAdjustment Committee for new proceedings if the proceed-\\nings are found to be defective due to[] … [i]mproper exclu-\\nsion of witnesses.” ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 20, § 504.90(a)(3). In\\nMorgan’s view this provision makes his case like Dotson and\\nSkinner, where success merely meant access to new proceed-\\nings. Morgan claims that a judgment in his favor would\\nbring “a new hearing that appropriately considers previous-\\nly excluded evidence.” The hearing could go either way—\\nlike the parole hearings in Dotson or the testing in Skinner—\\nso Heck poses no problem for Morgan’s suit.\\n\\f12 No. 16-2384\\n\\n We disagree. Heck is not inapplicable merely because\\nstate prison regulations call for replacement proceedings in\\ncertain situations. Heck prevents the entry of any judgment\\nthat would cast doubt on the validity of the plaintiff’s pun-\\nishment or conviction. Burd, 702 F.3d at 433. To repeat, in\\nDotson the plaintiffs sought entirely forward-looking relief in\\nthe form of new hearings under a different set of rules.\\nJudgment granting that relief wouldn’t impugn their sen-\\ntences. Morgan seeks money damages—a classic retrospec-\\ntive remedy. That Morgan might receive additional\\nadministrative proceedings as a collateral consequence of\\nreceiving a damages judgment does not render that hypo-\\nthetical judgment any more consistent with the validity of\\nhis disciplinary punishment.\\n It’s worth noting that Morgan could have challenged the\\nBoard’s ruling in other ways. Id. at 436 (holding that “Heck\\napplies where a § 1983 plaintiff could have sought collateral\\nrelief … but declined the opportunity”). Under Illinois law\\nthe writ of certiorari empowers circuit courts to review\\nadministrative determinations “when the act conferring\\npower on the agency does not expressly adopt the Adminis-\\ntrative Review Law and provides for no other form of re-\\nview.” Hanrahan v. Williams, 673 N.E.2d 251, 253 (Ill. 1996).\\nIllinois statutes governing prison discipline do not provide\\nfor judicial review, so “prison disciplinary proceedings are\\nreviewable in an action for certiorari.” Fillmore v. Taylor,\\n80 N.E.3d 835, 849 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). Alternatively, Morgan\\ncould have asked a state court to issue a writ of mandamus\\nordering Menard officials to conduct a new hearing. Dye v.\\nPierce, 868 N.E.2d 293, 296 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (“An allegation\\nof a due-process-rights violation … states a cause of action in\\nmandamus.”). And after exhausting state review, he could\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 13\\n\\nhave sought relief under the federal habeas corpus statute.\\nInstead he immediately sued for money damages under\\n§ 1983—and ran directly into Heck.\\n Although Morgan does not currently have a cognizable\\n§ 1983 claim, it is at least possible that he could convince a\\nstate court to provide the favorable termination required by\\nHeck. Illinois courts apply a six-month limitations period to\\ncertiorari actions, but a court might hear a late certiorari\\naction if no “public detriment or inconvenience would result\\nfrom [the] delay.” Alicea v. Snyder, 748 N.E.2d 285, 290 (Ill.\\nApp. Ct. 2001).\\n Heck-barred claims must be dismissed. Johnson v.\\nWinstead, 900 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. 2018). But given the\\npossibility of future state-court proceedings, Morgan’s claim\\nshould have been dismissed without prejudice. See Moore v.\\nBurge, 771 F.3d 444, 446 (7th Cir. 2014); Polzin v. Gage,\\n636 F.3d 834, 839 (7th Cir. 2011). We modify the judgment to\\nreflect a dismissal without prejudice. As modified, the\\njudgment is affirmed.\\n AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4364823/\", \"author_raw\": \"Diane S. Sykes\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587570/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Jeryme MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Minh SCHOTT, Tim Veath, and Hudson Maynard, Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 16-2384\nJERYME MORGAN,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nMINH SCHOTT, TIM VEATH,\nand HUDSON MAYNARD,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Southern District of Illinois.\n No. 13-cv-0881-SCW — Stephen C. Williams, Magistrate Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Illinois prison officials issued a dis-\nciplinary report charging inmate Jeryme Morgan with\noffenses stemming from a violent assault on fellow prison-\ners. Morgan disputed the charges and asked the authorities\nto call a witness to testify at his Adjustment Committee\nhearing. But the Committee never called Morgan’s witness.\nHe was found guilty and the Committee imposed punish-\n\f2 No. 16-2384\n\nment of one year of segregation, various status and access\nrestrictions, and revocation of three months of good-time\ncredits. Morgan filed a grievance challenging his punish-\nment on due-process grounds and appealed its subsequent\ndenial to the Administrative Review Board (“the Board”).\nThe Board adjusted the revocation of good-time credits to\none month but affirmed the Committee’s due-process ruling,\nconcluding that Morgan’s witness request did not comply\nwith prison rules.\n Alleging a raft of constitutional violations, Morgan sued\nthree officers for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming\nthat the failure to call his witness violated his right to due\nprocess. The officers moved for summary judgment citing\nthe favorable-termination rule announced in Heck v.\nHumphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Heck holds that “when a state\nprisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court\nmust consider whether a judgment in [his] favor … would\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sen-\ntence.” Id. at 487. Where a favorable judgment would have\nthat effect, no § 1983 claim has accrued and “the complaint\nmust be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that\nthe conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id.\nMorgan countered that Heck is inapplicable due to his waiv-\ner of all claims relating to the revocation of his good-time\ncredits. A magistrate judge rejected Morgan’s attempt to skirt\nHeck and ruled that his due-process claim was not cogniza-\nble under § 1983.\n We affirm. Prisoners cannot make an end run around\nHeck by filing an affidavit waiving challenges to the portion\nof their punishment that revokes good-time credits. We\nrecently addressed that very tactic and found it incompatible\n\fNo. 16-2384 3\n\nwith the Heck line of cases. Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d\n1026 (7th Cir. 2016). Morgan provides no reason to question\nHaywood, and we reaffirm its reasoning. Morgan’s attempt to\nanalogize his case to Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005),\nand Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011), misunderstands\nthose decisions. Judgment in Morgan’s favor would neces-\nsarily imply the invalidity of his prison discipline. Thus, no\n§ 1983 claim has accrued. This suit is premature and must be\ndismissed without prejudice.\n I. Background\n Morgan is serving sentences for robbery, armed robbery,\nand sexual assault. For most of his incarceration—and at all\ntimes relevant to this case—he has been housed at Menard\nCorrectional Center (“Menard”). In January 2012 Officer\nHudson Maynard issued a disciplinary report accusing\nMorgan of taking part in an assault that occurred three\nmonths earlier in Menard’s east yard. The report charged\nMorgan with conspiring to attack the victims, joining the\nattack, possessing dangerous contraband, causing a disturb-\nance, interfering with prison investigations, and engaging in\nunauthorized organizational activities.\n Menard gives prisoners an opportunity to formally re-\nquest witnesses at a disciplinary hearing; the disciplinary\nreport provides a space to do so. If called, those witnesses\ntestify at the prisoner’s Adjustment Committee hearing.\nMorgan’s request was not a model of clarity. On the line\nrequesting a description of the subject of the witness’s testi-\nmony, Morgan wrote the name “James Lewis” followed by\nthe words “where abouts.” On the line reserved for the\nwitness’s name and other identifying information, Morgan\nagain wrote “James Lewis” but nothing else.\n\f4 No. 16-2384\n\n At Morgan’s Adjustment Committee hearing on\nJanuary 31, prison officials did not call James Lewis. The\nCommittee, which included Lieutenant Minh Schott and\nOfficer Tim Veath, found Morgan guilty and recommended\nrevoking three months of good-time credits and adding one\nyear of segregation, one year of lowered status, and several\naccess restrictions. Morgan filed a grievance arguing that the\nCommittee’s failure to call Lewis violated his right to due\nprocess. Morgan’s grievance was denied, so he appealed to\nthe Board. The Board ruled that Morgan’s witness request\ndid not meet the minimum requirements under prison rules.\nIllinois regulations require that such requests “shall be in\nwriting on the space provided in the disciplinary report and\nshall include an explanation of what the witnesses would\nstate.” ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 20, § 504.80(f)(2). Because\nMorgan failed to adequately identify his witness or describe\nhis testimony, and because officials failed to locate a James\nLewis at Menard, the Board concluded that Morgan’s hear-\ning comported with due process.\n Rather than challenge the Board’s ruling in state court,\nMorgan filed a pro se complaint in the Southern District of\nIllinois seeking damages under § 1983. He alleged numerous\nconstitutional violations ranging from excessive force to\ndeliberate indifference. Those claims were severed and\nproceeded as a separate case. The district court did not\ninitially identify a due-process claim in Morgan’s complaint.\nHowever, a magistrate judge later found that Morgan had\nadequately alleged a violation of due process against\nLieutenant Schott and Officer Veath based on the Commit-\ntee’s failure to call James Lewis. Schott and Veath moved for\nsummary judgment, arguing that Morgan’s claim was barred\n\fNo. 16-2384 5\n\nby Heck, no reasonable jury could find a constitutional\nviolation, and qualified immunity applies.\n As part of Morgan’s strategy to avoid the Heck bar, he\nfiled an affidavit purporting to “abandon any and all present\nand future challenges” and “waiv[e] for all times all claims”\npertaining to the portion of his punishment that impacted\nthe duration of his confinement. He preserved only “claims\nchallenging the sanctions affecting the conditions of [his]\nconfinement.” Morgan argued that his affidavit rendered\nHeck inapplicable, citing the Second Circuit’s decision in\nPeralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2006).\n The magistrate judge concluded that Heck barred\nMorgan’s suit and entered summary judgment for Schott\nand Veath, dismissing Morgan’s due-process claim with\nprejudice. The judge rejected Morgan’s attempt to use strate-\ngic waiver to “dodge” Heck. He said Morgan’s due-process\nclaim “call[s] into question the validity of the prison disci-\npline[] because to accept that claim necessarily implie[s] that\nthe discipline was somehow invalid.”\n II. Discussion\n We review a summary judgment de novo, reading the\nrecord in the light most favorable to Morgan and drawing all\nreasonable inferences in his favor. Tolliver v. City of Chicago,\n820 F.3d 237, 241 (7th Cir. 2016). Morgan renews his strate-\ngic-waiver argument in an effort to avoid the Heck bar. He\nalso attempts to evade Heck by arguing that success on the\nmerits would mean at most a new hearing, not a reduction\nof his term of imprisonment.\n We begin with an overview of the favorable-termination\nrule established in Heck v. Humphrey. Federal law affords\n\f6 No. 16-2384\n\nstate prisoners two venerable gateways to relief: the Civil\nRights Act of 1871, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and habeas\ncorpus review of state adjudications under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.\nThey are not interchangeable. The Supreme Court made this\nfact crystal clear in a line of cases barring § 1983 suits predi-\ncated on claims reserved for habeas challenges. In Preiser v.\nRodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 476 (1973), the Court evaluated a\n§ 1983 claim attacking prison discipline proceedings on\nconstitutional grounds and seeking restoration of good-time\ncredits. The Court explained that habeas corpus—not\n§ 1983—is the “specific instrument to obtain release” from\nunlawful imprisonment. Id. at 486. Thus, when a prisoner\nchallenges “the fact or duration of his confinement,” he fails\nto state a cognizable § 1983 claim. Id. at 489.\n The Court expanded on Preiser in Heck v. Humphrey,\n512 U.S. at 486–87, in which the prisoner–plaintiff sought\ndamages for wrongful conviction. Heck claimed that Indiana\nprosecutors had destroyed exculpatory evidence and en-\ngaged in an “unlawful, unreasonable, and arbitrary investi-\ngation.” Id. at 479. The Court held that\n in order to recover damages for [an] allegedly\n unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,\n or for other harm caused by actions whose un-\n lawfulness would render a conviction or sen-\n tence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that\n the conviction or sentence has been reversed\n on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\n declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized\n to make such determination, or called into\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\n of habeas corpus.\n\fNo. 16-2384 7\n\nId. at 486–87. The Court distinguished Wolff v. McDonnell,\n418 U.S. 539 (1974), in which there was no “reason to be-\nlieve[] that using the wrong procedures necessarily vitiated\nthe denial of good-time credits.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 483. Con-\nversely, a judgment in Heck’s favor would “necessarily\nimply the invalidity of [Heck’s] conviction or sentence.” Id. at\n487. When a judgment for the plaintiff would have that\neffect, no § 1983 claim accrues until the plaintiff succeeds in\ninvalidating the underlying conviction or sentence.\n The Court extended Heck to the prison-discipline context\nin Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). Balisok alleged that\nthe presiding officer at his conduct hearing was biased and\ndeprived him of the opportunity to present exculpatory\nwitness testimony. Id. at 643. Some of Balisok’s good-time\ncredits were revoked. He did not challenge the result of the\nproceeding or the punishment he received. Instead, he\nclaimed in a § 1983 suit that he was deprived of due process.\nId. at 645. The Court held that judgment for Balisok would\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of his disciplinary sentence.\nId. at 648. The Court reasoned that denial of the opportunity\nto present witnesses was “an obvious procedural defect, and\nstate and federal courts have reinstated good-time credits\n(absent a new hearing) when it is established.” Id. at 647.\nThus, Heck’s favorable-termination rule applied. Id. at 648.\nA. Strategic Waiver\n Morgan argues that challenges to the conditions of a pris-\noner’s confinement—as opposed to the duration of that\nconfinement—do not implicate Heck, so a prisoner should be\npermitted to challenge a disciplinary proceeding via § 1983 if\nhe waives all challenges to duration-of-confinement sanc-\n\f8 No. 16-2384\n\ntions. Morgan’s is not a novel argument. We have rejected it\nbefore and see no reason to change course.\n When an inmate is found guilty of a disciplinary viola-\ntion, prison officials can apply sanctions reducing the in-\nmate’s privileges within the facility. They can also revoke\ngood-time credits, a sanction that has the effect of lengthen-\ning the inmate’s term of confinement. Morgan relies on\nPeralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98, in which the Second Circuit\nconsidered the mixed-sanctions scenario and chose to em-\nbrace strategic waiver as a means of removing the Heck bar.\nThe court held that a prisoner facing condition-of-\nconfinement sanctions and duration-of-confinement sanc-\ntions could challenge the former under § 1983 without\ncomplying with Heck’s favorable-termination requirement.\nId. at 104. All the prisoner must do is “abandon, not just now,\nbut also in any future proceeding, any claims he may have\nwith respect to the duration of his confinement that arise out\nof the proceeding he is attacking.” Id.\n We rejected Peralta in Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026.\nThe approach Morgan urges us to adopt rests on a misun-\nderstanding of Heck. The favorable-termination rule is more\nthan a procedural hurdle that plaintiffs can skirt with artful\ncomplaint drafting or opportunistic affidavits. Rather, it is\ngrounded in substantive concerns about allowing conflicting\njudgments. As we explained in Haywood, the Heck rule is “a\nversion of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), under which\nthe outstanding criminal judgment or disciplinary sanction,\nas long as it stands, blocks any inconsistent civil judgment.”\n842 F.3d at 1029. Neither Peralta nor Morgan can account for\nthis aspect of Heck.\n\fNo. 16-2384 9\n\n Endorsing Morgan’s arguments would undercut another\nfeature of the Court’s favorable-termination jurisprudence.\nHeck held that “a § 1983 cause of action for damages at-\ntributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does\nnot accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invali-\ndated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90 (emphasis added). Morgan’s\nargument is incompatible with that holding. If a prisoner’s\nchallenge to a disciplinary hearing implies the invalidity of\nthe resulting sanctions, no § 1983 claim has accrued. And\n“[i]f the claim has not accrued, it cannot matter what relief a\nprisoner seeks.” Haywood, 842 F.3d at 1028. Selective waiver\nsimply doesn’t alter the analysis.\n Morgan concedes that Haywood controls his case and asks\nus to overrule it. But we do not reverse our precedents\nlightly; we need “compelling reasons” to do so. Russ v.\nWatts, 414 F.3d 783, 788 (7th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court\nhas not cast doubt on Haywood, and it does not represent a\nminority approach among our sister circuits. See Glaser v.\nWound Care Consultants, Inc., 570 F.3d 907, 915 (7th Cir. 2009)\n(discussing circumstances in which we reconsider our\nprecedents). Moreover, we remain convinced that “Peralta is\nincompatible with Heck and its successors.” Haywood,\n842 F.3d at 1030. State prisoners cannot avoid the favorable-\ntermination rule by engaging in strategic waiver. If judgment\nfor a § 1983 plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity\nof his punishment, the Heck rule applies and favorable\ntermination of the underlying proceeding is a prerequisite to\nrelief. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004).\nB. Dotson and Skinner\n Morgan also compares his case to Wilkinson v. Dotson,\n544 U.S. 74 (2005), and Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011),\n\f10 No. 16-2384\n\nbut the analogy is inapt. In Dotson the Court dealt with two\n§ 1983 suits challenging the retroactivity of certain state\nparole-hearing procedures on due-process grounds. The\nplaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction order-\ning parole hearings under a different set of rules. Dotson,\n544 U.S. at 76–77. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims\nwere cognizable under § 1983 because success would mean\n“new [parole] eligibility review” for one plaintiff and “a new\nparole hearing” for the other, neither of which would “nec-\nessarily spell immediate or speedier release” or imply the\ninvalidity of their sentences. Id. at 81 (emphasis omitted). In\nSkinner the Court allowed a Texas prisoner to seek postcon-\nviction DNA testing using a § 1983 suit because “[s]uccess …\ngains for the prisoner only access to the DNA evidence,\nwhich may prove exculpatory, inculpatory, or inconclusive.”\n562 U.S. at 525. Thus, judgment for the plaintiff wouldn’t\nnecessarily imply unlawful confinement by the State.\n It’s not clear that Morgan made this argument below. But\nin the interest of completeness, we address it here. Morgan\nmisses a key distinction between his case and Dotson and\nSkinner—a distinction we’ve discussed before. See Burd v.\nSessler, 702 F.3d 429, 432–34 (7th Cir. 2012). The plaintiffs in\nDotson and Skinner sought purely prospective relief: parole\nhearings under different rules in Dotson; DNA testing in\nSkinner. As we explained in Burd, the Dotson and Skinner\nplaintiffs sought entirely forward-looking relief: access to\n“procedural pathways that, if successfully employed, might\n[have led] to the overturning of the underlying conviction.”\nBurd, 702 F.3d at 433 (emphasis added). Judgment for those\nplaintiffs would not have implied the invalidity of their\nconvictions or sentences.\n\fNo. 16-2384 11\n\n Morgan’s claim, in contrast, is entirely backward looking.\nHe alleges a due-process violation at the hearing that gener-\nated his disciplinary sanctions. A damages judgment for\nMorgan would amount to a judicial determination that\nprison officials infringed Morgan’s constitutional rights by\nfailing to call a witness in his defense, rendering the pro-\nceeding unfair. Such a judgment would straightforwardly\nimply the invalidity of his punishment, triggering Heck’s\nfavorable-termination rule. Balisok, 520 U.S. at 648; see also\nLusz v. Scott, 126 F.3d 1018, 1022 (7th Cir. 1997) (applying the\nHeck bar where the plaintiff argued “that he was denied the\nopportunity to call requested witnesses in his favor”). We’ve\nclarified before that “‘[i]mply’ is not synonymous with\n‘invalidate.’” Hill v. Murphy, 785 F.3d 242, 248 (7th Cir. 2015).\nJudgment in Morgan’s favor would allow him “to argue that\nhe had been determined by a court to have been unjustly”\npunished—an outcome that “Heck forbids.” Id.\n Morgan argues that Illinois regulations make all the dif-\nference. By rule, “[t]he Director, Deputy Director or Chief\nAdministrative Officer shall remand the decision to the\nAdjustment Committee for new proceedings if the proceed-\nings are found to be defective due to[] … [i]mproper exclu-\nsion of witnesses.” ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 20, § 504.90(a)(3). In\nMorgan’s view this provision makes his case like Dotson and\nSkinner, where success merely meant access to new proceed-\nings. Morgan claims that a judgment in his favor would\nbring “a new hearing that appropriately considers previous-\nly excluded evidence.” The hearing could go either way—\nlike the parole hearings in Dotson or the testing in Skinner—\nso Heck poses no problem for Morgan’s suit.\n\f12 No. 16-2384\n\n We disagree. Heck is not inapplicable merely because\nstate prison regulations call for replacement proceedings in\ncertain situations. Heck prevents the entry of any judgment\nthat would cast doubt on the validity of the plaintiff’s pun-\nishment or conviction. Burd, 702 F.3d at 433. To repeat, in\nDotson the plaintiffs sought entirely forward-looking relief in\nthe form of new hearings under a different set of rules.\nJudgment granting that relief wouldn’t impugn their sen-\ntences. Morgan seeks money damages—a classic retrospec-\ntive remedy. That Morgan might receive additional\nadministrative proceedings as a collateral consequence of\nreceiving a damages judgment does not render that hypo-\nthetical judgment any more consistent with the validity of\nhis disciplinary punishment.\n It’s worth noting that Morgan could have challenged the\nBoard’s ruling in other ways. Id. at 436 (holding that “Heck\napplies where a § 1983 plaintiff could have sought collateral\nrelief … but declined the opportunity”). Under Illinois law\nthe writ of certiorari empowers circuit courts to review\nadministrative determinations “when the act conferring\npower on the agency does not expressly adopt the Adminis-\ntrative Review Law and provides for no other form of re-\nview.” Hanrahan v. Williams, 673 N.E.2d 251, 253 (Ill. 1996).\nIllinois statutes governing prison discipline do not provide\nfor judicial review, so “prison disciplinary proceedings are\nreviewable in an action for certiorari.” Fillmore v. Taylor,\n80 N.E.3d 835, 849 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). Alternatively, Morgan\ncould have asked a state court to issue a writ of mandamus\nordering Menard officials to conduct a new hearing. Dye v.\nPierce, 868 N.E.2d 293, 296 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (“An allegation\nof a due-process-rights violation … states a cause of action in\nmandamus.”). And after exhausting state review, he could\n\fNo. 16-2384 13\n\nhave sought relief under the federal habeas corpus statute.\nInstead he immediately sued for money damages under\n§ 1983—and ran directly into Heck.\n Although Morgan does not currently have a cognizable\n§ 1983 claim, it is at least possible that he could convince a\nstate court to provide the favorable termination required by\nHeck. Illinois courts apply a six-month limitations period to\ncertiorari actions, but a court might hear a late certiorari\naction if no “public detriment or inconvenience would result\nfrom [the] delay.” Alicea v. Snyder, 748 N.E.2d 285, 290 (Ill.\nApp. Ct. 2001).\n Heck-barred claims must be dismissed. Johnson v.\nWinstead, 900 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. 2018). But given the\npossibility of future state-court proceedings, Morgan’s claim\nshould have been dismissed without prejudice. See Moore v.\nBurge, 771 F.3d 444, 446 (7th Cir. 2014); Polzin v. Gage,\n636 F.3d 834, 839 (7th Cir. 2011). We modify the judgment to\nreflect a dismissal without prejudice. As modified, the\njudgment is affirmed.\n AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Jeryme MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Minh SCHOTT, Tim Veath, and Hudson Maynard, Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 16-2384\\nJERYME MORGAN,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nMINH SCHOTT, TIM VEATH,\\nand HUDSON MAYNARD,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Illinois.\\n No. 13-cv-0881-SCW — Stephen C. Williams, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Illinois prison officials issued a dis-\\nciplinary report charging inmate Jeryme Morgan with\\noffenses stemming from a violent assault on fellow prison-\\ners. Morgan disputed the charges and asked the authorities\\nto call a witness to testify at his Adjustment Committee\\nhearing. But the Committee never called Morgan’s witness.\\nHe was found guilty and the Committee imposed punish-\\n\\f2 No. 16-2384\\n\\nment of one year of segregation, various status and access\\nrestrictions, and revocation of three months of good-time\\ncredits. Morgan filed a grievance challenging his punish-\\nment on due-process grounds and appealed its subsequent\\ndenial to the Administrative Review Board (“the Board”).\\nThe Board adjusted the revocation of good-time credits to\\none month but affirmed the Committee’s due-process ruling,\\nconcluding that Morgan’s witness request did not comply\\nwith prison rules.\\n Alleging a raft of constitutional violations, Morgan sued\\nthree officers for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming\\nthat the failure to call his witness violated his right to due\\nprocess. The officers moved for summary judgment citing\\nthe favorable-termination rule announced in Heck v.\\nHumphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Heck holds that “when a state\\nprisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court\\nmust consider whether a judgment in [his] favor … would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sen-\\ntence.” Id. at 487. Where a favorable judgment would have\\nthat effect, no § 1983 claim has accrued and “the complaint\\nmust be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that\\nthe conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id.\\nMorgan countered that Heck is inapplicable due to his waiv-\\ner of all claims relating to the revocation of his good-time\\ncredits. A magistrate judge rejected Morgan’s attempt to skirt\\nHeck and ruled that his due-process claim was not cogniza-\\nble under § 1983.\\n We affirm. Prisoners cannot make an end run around\\nHeck by filing an affidavit waiving challenges to the portion\\nof their punishment that revokes good-time credits. We\\nrecently addressed that very tactic and found it incompatible\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 3\\n\\nwith the Heck line of cases. Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d\\n1026 (7th Cir. 2016). Morgan provides no reason to question\\nHaywood, and we reaffirm its reasoning. Morgan’s attempt to\\nanalogize his case to Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005),\\nand Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011), misunderstands\\nthose decisions. Judgment in Morgan’s favor would neces-\\nsarily imply the invalidity of his prison discipline. Thus, no\\n§ 1983 claim has accrued. This suit is premature and must be\\ndismissed without prejudice.\\n I. Background\\n Morgan is serving sentences for robbery, armed robbery,\\nand sexual assault. For most of his incarceration—and at all\\ntimes relevant to this case—he has been housed at Menard\\nCorrectional Center (“Menard”). In January 2012 Officer\\nHudson Maynard issued a disciplinary report accusing\\nMorgan of taking part in an assault that occurred three\\nmonths earlier in Menard’s east yard. The report charged\\nMorgan with conspiring to attack the victims, joining the\\nattack, possessing dangerous contraband, causing a disturb-\\nance, interfering with prison investigations, and engaging in\\nunauthorized organizational activities.\\n Menard gives prisoners an opportunity to formally re-\\nquest witnesses at a disciplinary hearing; the disciplinary\\nreport provides a space to do so. If called, those witnesses\\ntestify at the prisoner’s Adjustment Committee hearing.\\nMorgan’s request was not a model of clarity. On the line\\nrequesting a description of the subject of the witness’s testi-\\nmony, Morgan wrote the name “James Lewis” followed by\\nthe words “where abouts.” On the line reserved for the\\nwitness’s name and other identifying information, Morgan\\nagain wrote “James Lewis” but nothing else.\\n\\f4 No. 16-2384\\n\\n At Morgan’s Adjustment Committee hearing on\\nJanuary 31, prison officials did not call James Lewis. The\\nCommittee, which included Lieutenant Minh Schott and\\nOfficer Tim Veath, found Morgan guilty and recommended\\nrevoking three months of good-time credits and adding one\\nyear of segregation, one year of lowered status, and several\\naccess restrictions. Morgan filed a grievance arguing that the\\nCommittee’s failure to call Lewis violated his right to due\\nprocess. Morgan’s grievance was denied, so he appealed to\\nthe Board. The Board ruled that Morgan’s witness request\\ndid not meet the minimum requirements under prison rules.\\nIllinois regulations require that such requests “shall be in\\nwriting on the space provided in the disciplinary report and\\nshall include an explanation of what the witnesses would\\nstate.” ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 20, § 504.80(f)(2). Because\\nMorgan failed to adequately identify his witness or describe\\nhis testimony, and because officials failed to locate a James\\nLewis at Menard, the Board concluded that Morgan’s hear-\\ning comported with due process.\\n Rather than challenge the Board’s ruling in state court,\\nMorgan filed a pro se complaint in the Southern District of\\nIllinois seeking damages under § 1983. He alleged numerous\\nconstitutional violations ranging from excessive force to\\ndeliberate indifference. Those claims were severed and\\nproceeded as a separate case. The district court did not\\ninitially identify a due-process claim in Morgan’s complaint.\\nHowever, a magistrate judge later found that Morgan had\\nadequately alleged a violation of due process against\\nLieutenant Schott and Officer Veath based on the Commit-\\ntee’s failure to call James Lewis. Schott and Veath moved for\\nsummary judgment, arguing that Morgan’s claim was barred\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 5\\n\\nby Heck, no reasonable jury could find a constitutional\\nviolation, and qualified immunity applies.\\n As part of Morgan’s strategy to avoid the Heck bar, he\\nfiled an affidavit purporting to “abandon any and all present\\nand future challenges” and “waiv[e] for all times all claims”\\npertaining to the portion of his punishment that impacted\\nthe duration of his confinement. He preserved only “claims\\nchallenging the sanctions affecting the conditions of [his]\\nconfinement.” Morgan argued that his affidavit rendered\\nHeck inapplicable, citing the Second Circuit’s decision in\\nPeralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2006).\\n The magistrate judge concluded that Heck barred\\nMorgan’s suit and entered summary judgment for Schott\\nand Veath, dismissing Morgan’s due-process claim with\\nprejudice. The judge rejected Morgan’s attempt to use strate-\\ngic waiver to “dodge” Heck. He said Morgan’s due-process\\nclaim “call[s] into question the validity of the prison disci-\\npline[] because to accept that claim necessarily implie[s] that\\nthe discipline was somehow invalid.”\\n II. Discussion\\n We review a summary judgment de novo, reading the\\nrecord in the light most favorable to Morgan and drawing all\\nreasonable inferences in his favor. Tolliver v. City of Chicago,\\n820 F.3d 237, 241 (7th Cir. 2016). Morgan renews his strate-\\ngic-waiver argument in an effort to avoid the Heck bar. He\\nalso attempts to evade Heck by arguing that success on the\\nmerits would mean at most a new hearing, not a reduction\\nof his term of imprisonment.\\n We begin with an overview of the favorable-termination\\nrule established in Heck v. Humphrey. Federal law affords\\n\\f6 No. 16-2384\\n\\nstate prisoners two venerable gateways to relief: the Civil\\nRights Act of 1871, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and habeas\\ncorpus review of state adjudications under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.\\nThey are not interchangeable. The Supreme Court made this\\nfact crystal clear in a line of cases barring § 1983 suits predi-\\ncated on claims reserved for habeas challenges. In Preiser v.\\nRodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 476 (1973), the Court evaluated a\\n§ 1983 claim attacking prison discipline proceedings on\\nconstitutional grounds and seeking restoration of good-time\\ncredits. The Court explained that habeas corpus—not\\n§ 1983—is the “specific instrument to obtain release” from\\nunlawful imprisonment. Id. at 486. Thus, when a prisoner\\nchallenges “the fact or duration of his confinement,” he fails\\nto state a cognizable § 1983 claim. Id. at 489.\\n The Court expanded on Preiser in Heck v. Humphrey,\\n512 U.S. at 486–87, in which the prisoner–plaintiff sought\\ndamages for wrongful conviction. Heck claimed that Indiana\\nprosecutors had destroyed exculpatory evidence and en-\\ngaged in an “unlawful, unreasonable, and arbitrary investi-\\ngation.” Id. at 479. The Court held that\\n in order to recover damages for [an] allegedly\\n unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,\\n or for other harm caused by actions whose un-\\n lawfulness would render a conviction or sen-\\n tence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that\\n the conviction or sentence has been reversed\\n on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\\n declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized\\n to make such determination, or called into\\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\\n of habeas corpus.\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 7\\n\\nId. at 486–87. The Court distinguished Wolff v. McDonnell,\\n418 U.S. 539 (1974), in which there was no “reason to be-\\nlieve[] that using the wrong procedures necessarily vitiated\\nthe denial of good-time credits.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 483. Con-\\nversely, a judgment in Heck’s favor would “necessarily\\nimply the invalidity of [Heck’s] conviction or sentence.” Id. at\\n487. When a judgment for the plaintiff would have that\\neffect, no § 1983 claim accrues until the plaintiff succeeds in\\ninvalidating the underlying conviction or sentence.\\n The Court extended Heck to the prison-discipline context\\nin Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). Balisok alleged that\\nthe presiding officer at his conduct hearing was biased and\\ndeprived him of the opportunity to present exculpatory\\nwitness testimony. Id. at 643. Some of Balisok’s good-time\\ncredits were revoked. He did not challenge the result of the\\nproceeding or the punishment he received. Instead, he\\nclaimed in a § 1983 suit that he was deprived of due process.\\nId. at 645. The Court held that judgment for Balisok would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of his disciplinary sentence.\\nId. at 648. The Court reasoned that denial of the opportunity\\nto present witnesses was “an obvious procedural defect, and\\nstate and federal courts have reinstated good-time credits\\n(absent a new hearing) when it is established.” Id. at 647.\\nThus, Heck’s favorable-termination rule applied. Id. at 648.\\nA. Strategic Waiver\\n Morgan argues that challenges to the conditions of a pris-\\noner’s confinement—as opposed to the duration of that\\nconfinement—do not implicate Heck, so a prisoner should be\\npermitted to challenge a disciplinary proceeding via § 1983 if\\nhe waives all challenges to duration-of-confinement sanc-\\n\\f8 No. 16-2384\\n\\ntions. Morgan’s is not a novel argument. We have rejected it\\nbefore and see no reason to change course.\\n When an inmate is found guilty of a disciplinary viola-\\ntion, prison officials can apply sanctions reducing the in-\\nmate’s privileges within the facility. They can also revoke\\ngood-time credits, a sanction that has the effect of lengthen-\\ning the inmate’s term of confinement. Morgan relies on\\nPeralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98, in which the Second Circuit\\nconsidered the mixed-sanctions scenario and chose to em-\\nbrace strategic waiver as a means of removing the Heck bar.\\nThe court held that a prisoner facing condition-of-\\nconfinement sanctions and duration-of-confinement sanc-\\ntions could challenge the former under § 1983 without\\ncomplying with Heck’s favorable-termination requirement.\\nId. at 104. All the prisoner must do is “abandon, not just now,\\nbut also in any future proceeding, any claims he may have\\nwith respect to the duration of his confinement that arise out\\nof the proceeding he is attacking.” Id.\\n We rejected Peralta in Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026.\\nThe approach Morgan urges us to adopt rests on a misun-\\nderstanding of Heck. The favorable-termination rule is more\\nthan a procedural hurdle that plaintiffs can skirt with artful\\ncomplaint drafting or opportunistic affidavits. Rather, it is\\ngrounded in substantive concerns about allowing conflicting\\njudgments. As we explained in Haywood, the Heck rule is “a\\nversion of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), under which\\nthe outstanding criminal judgment or disciplinary sanction,\\nas long as it stands, blocks any inconsistent civil judgment.”\\n842 F.3d at 1029. Neither Peralta nor Morgan can account for\\nthis aspect of Heck.\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 9\\n\\n Endorsing Morgan’s arguments would undercut another\\nfeature of the Court’s favorable-termination jurisprudence.\\nHeck held that “a § 1983 cause of action for damages at-\\ntributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does\\nnot accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invali-\\ndated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90 (emphasis added). Morgan’s\\nargument is incompatible with that holding. If a prisoner’s\\nchallenge to a disciplinary hearing implies the invalidity of\\nthe resulting sanctions, no § 1983 claim has accrued. And\\n“[i]f the claim has not accrued, it cannot matter what relief a\\nprisoner seeks.” Haywood, 842 F.3d at 1028. Selective waiver\\nsimply doesn’t alter the analysis.\\n Morgan concedes that Haywood controls his case and asks\\nus to overrule it. But we do not reverse our precedents\\nlightly; we need “compelling reasons” to do so. Russ v.\\nWatts, 414 F.3d 783, 788 (7th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court\\nhas not cast doubt on Haywood, and it does not represent a\\nminority approach among our sister circuits. See Glaser v.\\nWound Care Consultants, Inc., 570 F.3d 907, 915 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(discussing circumstances in which we reconsider our\\nprecedents). Moreover, we remain convinced that “Peralta is\\nincompatible with Heck and its successors.” Haywood,\\n842 F.3d at 1030. State prisoners cannot avoid the favorable-\\ntermination rule by engaging in strategic waiver. If judgment\\nfor a § 1983 plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity\\nof his punishment, the Heck rule applies and favorable\\ntermination of the underlying proceeding is a prerequisite to\\nrelief. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004).\\nB. Dotson and Skinner\\n Morgan also compares his case to Wilkinson v. Dotson,\\n544 U.S. 74 (2005), and Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011),\\n\\f10 No. 16-2384\\n\\nbut the analogy is inapt. In Dotson the Court dealt with two\\n§ 1983 suits challenging the retroactivity of certain state\\nparole-hearing procedures on due-process grounds. The\\nplaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction order-\\ning parole hearings under a different set of rules. Dotson,\\n544 U.S. at 76–77. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims\\nwere cognizable under § 1983 because success would mean\\n“new [parole] eligibility review” for one plaintiff and “a new\\nparole hearing” for the other, neither of which would “nec-\\nessarily spell immediate or speedier release” or imply the\\ninvalidity of their sentences. Id. at 81 (emphasis omitted). In\\nSkinner the Court allowed a Texas prisoner to seek postcon-\\nviction DNA testing using a § 1983 suit because “[s]uccess …\\ngains for the prisoner only access to the DNA evidence,\\nwhich may prove exculpatory, inculpatory, or inconclusive.”\\n562 U.S. at 525. Thus, judgment for the plaintiff wouldn’t\\nnecessarily imply unlawful confinement by the State.\\n It’s not clear that Morgan made this argument below. But\\nin the interest of completeness, we address it here. Morgan\\nmisses a key distinction between his case and Dotson and\\nSkinner—a distinction we’ve discussed before. See Burd v.\\nSessler, 702 F.3d 429, 432–34 (7th Cir. 2012). The plaintiffs in\\nDotson and Skinner sought purely prospective relief: parole\\nhearings under different rules in Dotson; DNA testing in\\nSkinner. As we explained in Burd, the Dotson and Skinner\\nplaintiffs sought entirely forward-looking relief: access to\\n“procedural pathways that, if successfully employed, might\\n[have led] to the overturning of the underlying conviction.”\\nBurd, 702 F.3d at 433 (emphasis added). Judgment for those\\nplaintiffs would not have implied the invalidity of their\\nconvictions or sentences.\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 11\\n\\n Morgan’s claim, in contrast, is entirely backward looking.\\nHe alleges a due-process violation at the hearing that gener-\\nated his disciplinary sanctions. A damages judgment for\\nMorgan would amount to a judicial determination that\\nprison officials infringed Morgan’s constitutional rights by\\nfailing to call a witness in his defense, rendering the pro-\\nceeding unfair. Such a judgment would straightforwardly\\nimply the invalidity of his punishment, triggering Heck’s\\nfavorable-termination rule. Balisok, 520 U.S. at 648; see also\\nLusz v. Scott, 126 F.3d 1018, 1022 (7th Cir. 1997) (applying the\\nHeck bar where the plaintiff argued “that he was denied the\\nopportunity to call requested witnesses in his favor”). We’ve\\nclarified before that “‘[i]mply’ is not synonymous with\\n‘invalidate.’” Hill v. Murphy, 785 F.3d 242, 248 (7th Cir. 2015).\\nJudgment in Morgan’s favor would allow him “to argue that\\nhe had been determined by a court to have been unjustly”\\npunished—an outcome that “Heck forbids.” Id.\\n Morgan argues that Illinois regulations make all the dif-\\nference. By rule, “[t]he Director, Deputy Director or Chief\\nAdministrative Officer shall remand the decision to the\\nAdjustment Committee for new proceedings if the proceed-\\nings are found to be defective due to[] … [i]mproper exclu-\\nsion of witnesses.” ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 20, § 504.90(a)(3). In\\nMorgan’s view this provision makes his case like Dotson and\\nSkinner, where success merely meant access to new proceed-\\nings. Morgan claims that a judgment in his favor would\\nbring “a new hearing that appropriately considers previous-\\nly excluded evidence.” The hearing could go either way—\\nlike the parole hearings in Dotson or the testing in Skinner—\\nso Heck poses no problem for Morgan’s suit.\\n\\f12 No. 16-2384\\n\\n We disagree. Heck is not inapplicable merely because\\nstate prison regulations call for replacement proceedings in\\ncertain situations. Heck prevents the entry of any judgment\\nthat would cast doubt on the validity of the plaintiff’s pun-\\nishment or conviction. Burd, 702 F.3d at 433. To repeat, in\\nDotson the plaintiffs sought entirely forward-looking relief in\\nthe form of new hearings under a different set of rules.\\nJudgment granting that relief wouldn’t impugn their sen-\\ntences. Morgan seeks money damages—a classic retrospec-\\ntive remedy. That Morgan might receive additional\\nadministrative proceedings as a collateral consequence of\\nreceiving a damages judgment does not render that hypo-\\nthetical judgment any more consistent with the validity of\\nhis disciplinary punishment.\\n It’s worth noting that Morgan could have challenged the\\nBoard’s ruling in other ways. Id. at 436 (holding that “Heck\\napplies where a § 1983 plaintiff could have sought collateral\\nrelief … but declined the opportunity”). Under Illinois law\\nthe writ of certiorari empowers circuit courts to review\\nadministrative determinations “when the act conferring\\npower on the agency does not expressly adopt the Adminis-\\ntrative Review Law and provides for no other form of re-\\nview.” Hanrahan v. Williams, 673 N.E.2d 251, 253 (Ill. 1996).\\nIllinois statutes governing prison discipline do not provide\\nfor judicial review, so “prison disciplinary proceedings are\\nreviewable in an action for certiorari.” Fillmore v. Taylor,\\n80 N.E.3d 835, 849 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). Alternatively, Morgan\\ncould have asked a state court to issue a writ of mandamus\\nordering Menard officials to conduct a new hearing. Dye v.\\nPierce, 868 N.E.2d 293, 296 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (“An allegation\\nof a due-process-rights violation … states a cause of action in\\nmandamus.”). And after exhausting state review, he could\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 13\\n\\nhave sought relief under the federal habeas corpus statute.\\nInstead he immediately sued for money damages under\\n§ 1983—and ran directly into Heck.\\n Although Morgan does not currently have a cognizable\\n§ 1983 claim, it is at least possible that he could convince a\\nstate court to provide the favorable termination required by\\nHeck. Illinois courts apply a six-month limitations period to\\ncertiorari actions, but a court might hear a late certiorari\\naction if no “public detriment or inconvenience would result\\nfrom [the] delay.” Alicea v. Snyder, 748 N.E.2d 285, 290 (Ill.\\nApp. Ct. 2001).\\n Heck-barred claims must be dismissed. Johnson v.\\nWinstead, 900 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. 2018). But given the\\npossibility of future state-court proceedings, Morgan’s claim\\nshould have been dismissed without prejudice. See Moore v.\\nBurge, 771 F.3d 444, 446 (7th Cir. 2014); Polzin v. Gage,\\n636 F.3d 834, 839 (7th Cir. 2011). We modify the judgment to\\nreflect a dismissal without prejudice. As modified, the\\njudgment is affirmed.\\n AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":662,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4587668,"string":"4,587,668"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Josue Vargas"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1250"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and KANNE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-1250\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nJOSUE VARGAS,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 14 CR 579 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and KANNE,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Convicted of two cocaine\\noffenses, 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1), Josue Vargas has been sen-\\ntenced to 72 months’ imprisonment. His principal appellate\\nargument is that the district judge should have suppressed\\npackages of that drug seized from his truck.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1250\\n\\n Vargas rented a parking place for his truck in a lot that\\nlacked assigned spaces. Agents in Ohio arrested Luis Hueter\\nas he transported three kilograms of cocaine that, Hueter as-\\nserted, he had purchased from Vargas the day before at his\\nparked truck. Hueter described Vargas, the truck, and the\\nlot. They immediately called agents in Illinois, who entered\\nthe lot by following someone through the gate. Approaching\\na truck that met Hueter’s description, the agents in Chicago\\nsent a photo to the agents in Ohio; Hueter identified the\\ntruck as Vargas’s. A dog was called in and alerted to the\\nodor of drugs. Agents then broke a window of the truck,\\nopened the door, and found eight more kilos of cocaine.\\n Vargas contends that the agents’ and the dog’s entry into\\nthe lot violated his rights. He does not say that it was im-\\nproper to break into the truck without a warrant; by the time\\nthe agents did this they had probable cause, based on\\nHueter’s statements plus confirmation (from the photo and\\nthe dog) that they had the right truck. But, citing Florida v.\\nJardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), and United States v. Jones, 565 U.S.\\n400 (2012), Vargas observes that an invasion of property is as\\nmuch within the Fourth Amendment as an invasion of pri-\\nvacy, and he insists that when the agents entered the lot they\\nlacked probable cause—and a parking lot is not a vehicle, so\\nthe agents could not benefit from the automobile exception\\nto the warrant requirement.\\n The argument is a dud, because Vargas neither owned\\nthe parking lot nor had a leasehold interest in any particular\\npart of it. Vargas was entitled to park his truck in any open\\nspace but not to exclude anyone else. Many other people al-\\nso parked there, and each could admit third parties. This is\\nwhy agents normally do not need probable cause or a war-\\n\\fNo. 18-1250 3\\n\\nrant to enter the vestibule of a multi-tenant building. See\\nUnited States v. Correa, 908 F.3d 208, 221–22 (7th Cir. 2018).\\n The only person whose property interest the agents in-\\nvaded was the lot’s owner, who isn’t complaining—and at\\nall events an invasion of the owner’s property (or privacy)\\nrights would not entitle Vargas to any remedy. Rights under\\nthe Fourth Amendment are personal; only someone whose\\nown rights have been transgressed is entitled to relief. See,\\ne.g., United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980); United States\\nv. Sweeney, 821 F.3d 893, 900 (7th Cir. 2016). No more need be\\nsaid about the search and seizure.\\n All of Vargas’s remaining arguments concern the conduct\\nof the trial. According to Vargas, the judge upbraided his\\nlawyer more often (and more sternly) than the prosecution’s\\nlawyer and erred in admiiing or excluding evidence. The\\ndistrict court considered and rejected these arguments when\\ndenying Vargas’s motion for a new trial. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\\n99021 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2016). Vargas hopes that we will find\\nthe contentions stronger than did the district judge.\\n Vargas presents almost all of his argument in constitu-\\ntional terms, asserting that the judge violated the Due Pro-\\ncess Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He mentions Fed. R.\\nEvid. 613 but in the main ignores both the Federal Rules of\\nEvidence and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He\\ndoes not maintain that any of these rules is unconstitutional\\nto the extent it allowed the judge to proceed as he did; in-\\nstead Vargas bypasses the rules in favor of the Constitution.\\nNor does he contend that the judge transgressed any super-\\nvisory rule laid down by the Supreme Court or by this court.\\nIt is, for him, the Constitution or nothing (the invocation of\\nRule 613 is so cursory that we need not discuss it), and the\\n\\f4 No. 18-1250\\n\\nConstitution at a high level of generality rather than any\\nconcrete rule of criminal procedure to be found in the Con-\\nfrontation Clause or anywhere else.\\n This is a hopeless strategy, because courts are obliged to\\nconsider statutory and rule-based arguments ahead of con-\\nstitutional ones. See, e.g., New York Transit Authority v. Beazer,\\n440 U.S. 568, 582–83 (1979). “Lawyers all too often invoke the\\nConstitution as if it were a panacea and bypass seemingly\\nmundane arguments based on statutes and regulations.\\nMimicking Gresham’s Law, flabby constitutional generalities\\ndrive out sound legal points.” Magala v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d\\n523, 526–27 (7th Cir. 2005). “Why counsel should start with\\nthe Constitution rather than the statutes and regulations that\\ngovern [these] proceedings is beyond us. Non-constitutional\\narguments always come first; constitutional contentions\\nmust be set aside until their resolution is unavoida-\\nble.” Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508 (7th Cir. 2006).\\n“Before taking up a constitutional issue, a federal court\\nshould satisfy itself that there is no available non-\\nconstitutional ground of decision.” There to Care, Inc. v.\\nCommissioner of the Indiana Department of Revenue, 19 F.3d\\n1165, 1167 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Spector Motor Service, Inc. v.\\nMcLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (1944)). See also BrockeL v. Spo-\\nkane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 501 (1985).\\n We illustrate this by considering one of Vargas’s eviden-\\ntiary arguments—the strongest one, as it seems to us, but\\none on which he has missed critical points.\\n During discovery, Vargas asked the prosecutor to identi-\\nfy any expert witnesses and describe the nature of the ex-\\nperts’ testimony. The prosecution made a reciprocal de-\\nmand. One potential witness identified by the prosecution\\n\\fNo. 18-1250 5\\n\\nwas Joseph Raschke, who would testify about how infor-\\nmation from cell towers could be used to locate Vargas and\\nHueter on the critical days. After the parties agreed to a\\nstipulation about cell-site evidence, the prosecution told the\\njudge that it would not call Raschke as a witness in its case-\\nin-chief. When Vargas tried to call Raschke in his own case,\\nthe prosecutor objected, because Vargas had not disclosed\\nRaschke as an expert for the defense or described the sub-\\njects of his testimony. The judge sustained the objection.\\nVargas now asserts that this was absurd—after all, the pros-\\necutor had to know what Raschke would have said on the\\nstand—and that absurd decisions must be unconstitutional.\\n Whether the judge erred depends not on the Due Process\\nClause but on Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C), which provides\\nthat at the prosecution’s request any defendant who has\\nmade an equivalent demand for expert disclosure must\\n“give to the government a wriien summary of any testimo-\\nny that the defense intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or\\n705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence … . This summary must\\ndescribe the witness’s opinions, the bases and reasons for\\nthose opinions, and the witness’s qualifications”. Vargas did\\nnot do this about Raschke; the omission is why the district\\njudge barred Vargas from calling Raschke at trial. And un-\\nless the defense plans to call an expert, already designated\\nby the prosecution, for exactly the maiers covered in the\\nprosecutor’s disclosure, it can’t be called absurd (let alone\\nunconstitutional) for the judge to enforce the Rule as wriien.\\nRule 16(b)(1)(C) thus sinks Vargas’s appellate argument un-\\nless courts have read this Rule, despite its text, as inapplica-\\nble to defendants who want to call witnesses already dis-\\nclosed by the prosecutor.\\n\\f6 No. 18-1250\\n\\n We could not find any decision holding that disclosure of\\nan expert by the prosecutor relieves the defense of a duty to\\nprovide its own disclosure, if the defense wants to call that\\nexpert. Nor could we find any decision in the other direction\\n(that is, we couldn’t find any decision holding that disclo-\\nsure by the defense relieved the prosecutor of its duty to dis-\\nclose the testimony that the same expert would give if called\\nby the prosecutor). The Rule is designed to ensure that each\\nside knows what an expert’s testimony would cover. See,\\ne.g., United States v. Bresil, 767 F.3d 124, 127 (1st Cir. 2014);\\nUnited States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 758 (4th Cir. 2002). The\\npossibility that one side will take an expert in a direction\\ndifferent from the other side’s planned destination affords a\\ngood reason why each must identify the potential “witness’s\\nopinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions”, no\\nmaier what the other side has disclosed.\\n Vargas has not addressed any of these subjects, because\\nhis brief does not mention Rule 16. When asked why at oral\\nargument, Vargas’s counsel asserted that no one pays any\\naiention to this Rule, so he did not need to bother. That is a\\nstaggering assertion. The prosecutor paid aiention; that’s\\nwhy an objection was made. The district judge enforced Rule\\n16 by sustaining the objection. And we enforce rules by in-\\nsisting that counsel address rather than ignore them. “There\\nis no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal\\ncase, and Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)] did not cre-\\nate one; as the Court wrote recently, ‘the Due Process Clause\\nhas liile to say regarding the amount of discovery which the\\nparties must be afforded … .’ Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470,\\n474 (1973).” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977).\\nSanctions for violating discovery rules also generally are\\nmaiers for the rules or statutes. See Michigan v. Lucas, 500\\n\\fNo. 18-1250 7\\n\\nU.S. 145 (1991) (judge entitled to exclude evidence after de-\\nfense failed to comply with a notice obligation). Only close\\naiention to Rule 16 might have offered Vargas a chance to\\nprevail.\\n None of Vargas’s other arguments requires discussion.\\nWe agree with him that the district judge should have been\\nmore even-handed (at least when the jury could overhear his\\nadmonitions to defense counsel), but neither on that subject\\nnor any other did the judge violate the Due Process Clause,\\nwhich in criminal cases deals with only egregious transgres-\\nsions of trial rules and decorum. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo,\\n416 U.S. 637 (1974).\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4364921/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587668/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Josue Vargas\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-1250\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\nJOSUE VARGAS,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 14 CR 579 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and KANNE,\nCircuit Judges.\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Convicted of two cocaine\noffenses, 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1), Josue Vargas has been sen-\ntenced to 72 months’ imprisonment. His principal appellate\nargument is that the district judge should have suppressed\npackages of that drug seized from his truck.\n\f2 No. 18-1250\n\n Vargas rented a parking place for his truck in a lot that\nlacked assigned spaces. Agents in Ohio arrested Luis Hueter\nas he transported three kilograms of cocaine that, Hueter as-\nserted, he had purchased from Vargas the day before at his\nparked truck. Hueter described Vargas, the truck, and the\nlot. They immediately called agents in Illinois, who entered\nthe lot by following someone through the gate. Approaching\na truck that met Hueter’s description, the agents in Chicago\nsent a photo to the agents in Ohio; Hueter identified the\ntruck as Vargas’s. A dog was called in and alerted to the\nodor of drugs. Agents then broke a window of the truck,\nopened the door, and found eight more kilos of cocaine.\n Vargas contends that the agents’ and the dog’s entry into\nthe lot violated his rights. He does not say that it was im-\nproper to break into the truck without a warrant; by the time\nthe agents did this they had probable cause, based on\nHueter’s statements plus confirmation (from the photo and\nthe dog) that they had the right truck. But, citing Florida v.\nJardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), and United States v. Jones, 565 U.S.\n400 (2012), Vargas observes that an invasion of property is as\nmuch within the Fourth Amendment as an invasion of pri-\nvacy, and he insists that when the agents entered the lot they\nlacked probable cause—and a parking lot is not a vehicle, so\nthe agents could not benefit from the automobile exception\nto the warrant requirement.\n The argument is a dud, because Vargas neither owned\nthe parking lot nor had a leasehold interest in any particular\npart of it. Vargas was entitled to park his truck in any open\nspace but not to exclude anyone else. Many other people al-\nso parked there, and each could admit third parties. This is\nwhy agents normally do not need probable cause or a war-\n\fNo. 18-1250 3\n\nrant to enter the vestibule of a multi-tenant building. See\nUnited States v. Correa, 908 F.3d 208, 221–22 (7th Cir. 2018).\n The only person whose property interest the agents in-\nvaded was the lot’s owner, who isn’t complaining—and at\nall events an invasion of the owner’s property (or privacy)\nrights would not entitle Vargas to any remedy. Rights under\nthe Fourth Amendment are personal; only someone whose\nown rights have been transgressed is entitled to relief. See,\ne.g., United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980); United States\nv. Sweeney, 821 F.3d 893, 900 (7th Cir. 2016). No more need be\nsaid about the search and seizure.\n All of Vargas’s remaining arguments concern the conduct\nof the trial. According to Vargas, the judge upbraided his\nlawyer more often (and more sternly) than the prosecution’s\nlawyer and erred in admiiing or excluding evidence. The\ndistrict court considered and rejected these arguments when\ndenying Vargas’s motion for a new trial. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n99021 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2016). Vargas hopes that we will find\nthe contentions stronger than did the district judge.\n Vargas presents almost all of his argument in constitu-\ntional terms, asserting that the judge violated the Due Pro-\ncess Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He mentions Fed. R.\nEvid. 613 but in the main ignores both the Federal Rules of\nEvidence and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He\ndoes not maintain that any of these rules is unconstitutional\nto the extent it allowed the judge to proceed as he did; in-\nstead Vargas bypasses the rules in favor of the Constitution.\nNor does he contend that the judge transgressed any super-\nvisory rule laid down by the Supreme Court or by this court.\nIt is, for him, the Constitution or nothing (the invocation of\nRule 613 is so cursory that we need not discuss it), and the\n\f4 No. 18-1250\n\nConstitution at a high level of generality rather than any\nconcrete rule of criminal procedure to be found in the Con-\nfrontation Clause or anywhere else.\n This is a hopeless strategy, because courts are obliged to\nconsider statutory and rule-based arguments ahead of con-\nstitutional ones. See, e.g., New York Transit Authority v. Beazer,\n440 U.S. 568, 582–83 (1979). “Lawyers all too often invoke the\nConstitution as if it were a panacea and bypass seemingly\nmundane arguments based on statutes and regulations.\nMimicking Gresham’s Law, flabby constitutional generalities\ndrive out sound legal points.” Magala v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d\n523, 526–27 (7th Cir. 2005). “Why counsel should start with\nthe Constitution rather than the statutes and regulations that\ngovern [these] proceedings is beyond us. Non-constitutional\narguments always come first; constitutional contentions\nmust be set aside until their resolution is unavoida-\nble.” Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508 (7th Cir. 2006).\n“Before taking up a constitutional issue, a federal court\nshould satisfy itself that there is no available non-\nconstitutional ground of decision.” There to Care, Inc. v.\nCommissioner of the Indiana Department of Revenue, 19 F.3d\n1165, 1167 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Spector Motor Service, Inc. v.\nMcLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (1944)). See also BrockeL v. Spo-\nkane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 501 (1985).\n We illustrate this by considering one of Vargas’s eviden-\ntiary arguments—the strongest one, as it seems to us, but\none on which he has missed critical points.\n During discovery, Vargas asked the prosecutor to identi-\nfy any expert witnesses and describe the nature of the ex-\nperts’ testimony. The prosecution made a reciprocal de-\nmand. One potential witness identified by the prosecution\n\fNo. 18-1250 5\n\nwas Joseph Raschke, who would testify about how infor-\nmation from cell towers could be used to locate Vargas and\nHueter on the critical days. After the parties agreed to a\nstipulation about cell-site evidence, the prosecution told the\njudge that it would not call Raschke as a witness in its case-\nin-chief. When Vargas tried to call Raschke in his own case,\nthe prosecutor objected, because Vargas had not disclosed\nRaschke as an expert for the defense or described the sub-\njects of his testimony. The judge sustained the objection.\nVargas now asserts that this was absurd—after all, the pros-\necutor had to know what Raschke would have said on the\nstand—and that absurd decisions must be unconstitutional.\n Whether the judge erred depends not on the Due Process\nClause but on Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C), which provides\nthat at the prosecution’s request any defendant who has\nmade an equivalent demand for expert disclosure must\n“give to the government a wriien summary of any testimo-\nny that the defense intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or\n705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence … . This summary must\ndescribe the witness’s opinions, the bases and reasons for\nthose opinions, and the witness’s qualifications”. Vargas did\nnot do this about Raschke; the omission is why the district\njudge barred Vargas from calling Raschke at trial. And un-\nless the defense plans to call an expert, already designated\nby the prosecution, for exactly the maiers covered in the\nprosecutor’s disclosure, it can’t be called absurd (let alone\nunconstitutional) for the judge to enforce the Rule as wriien.\nRule 16(b)(1)(C) thus sinks Vargas’s appellate argument un-\nless courts have read this Rule, despite its text, as inapplica-\nble to defendants who want to call witnesses already dis-\nclosed by the prosecutor.\n\f6 No. 18-1250\n\n We could not find any decision holding that disclosure of\nan expert by the prosecutor relieves the defense of a duty to\nprovide its own disclosure, if the defense wants to call that\nexpert. Nor could we find any decision in the other direction\n(that is, we couldn’t find any decision holding that disclo-\nsure by the defense relieved the prosecutor of its duty to dis-\nclose the testimony that the same expert would give if called\nby the prosecutor). The Rule is designed to ensure that each\nside knows what an expert’s testimony would cover. See,\ne.g., United States v. Bresil, 767 F.3d 124, 127 (1st Cir. 2014);\nUnited States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 758 (4th Cir. 2002). The\npossibility that one side will take an expert in a direction\ndifferent from the other side’s planned destination affords a\ngood reason why each must identify the potential “witness’s\nopinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions”, no\nmaier what the other side has disclosed.\n Vargas has not addressed any of these subjects, because\nhis brief does not mention Rule 16. When asked why at oral\nargument, Vargas’s counsel asserted that no one pays any\naiention to this Rule, so he did not need to bother. That is a\nstaggering assertion. The prosecutor paid aiention; that’s\nwhy an objection was made. The district judge enforced Rule\n16 by sustaining the objection. And we enforce rules by in-\nsisting that counsel address rather than ignore them. “There\nis no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal\ncase, and Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)] did not cre-\nate one; as the Court wrote recently, ‘the Due Process Clause\nhas liile to say regarding the amount of discovery which the\nparties must be afforded … .’ Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470,\n474 (1973).” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977).\nSanctions for violating discovery rules also generally are\nmaiers for the rules or statutes. See Michigan v. Lucas, 500\n\fNo. 18-1250 7\n\nU.S. 145 (1991) (judge entitled to exclude evidence after de-\nfense failed to comply with a notice obligation). Only close\naiention to Rule 16 might have offered Vargas a chance to\nprevail.\n None of Vargas’s other arguments requires discussion.\nWe agree with him that the district judge should have been\nmore even-handed (at least when the jury could overhear his\nadmonitions to defense counsel), but neither on that subject\nnor any other did the judge violate the Due Process Clause,\nwhich in criminal cases deals with only egregious transgres-\nsions of trial rules and decorum. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo,\n416 U.S. 637 (1974).\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Josue Vargas\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-1250\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nJOSUE VARGAS,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 14 CR 579 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and KANNE,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Convicted of two cocaine\\noffenses, 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1), Josue Vargas has been sen-\\ntenced to 72 months’ imprisonment. His principal appellate\\nargument is that the district judge should have suppressed\\npackages of that drug seized from his truck.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1250\\n\\n Vargas rented a parking place for his truck in a lot that\\nlacked assigned spaces. Agents in Ohio arrested Luis Hueter\\nas he transported three kilograms of cocaine that, Hueter as-\\nserted, he had purchased from Vargas the day before at his\\nparked truck. Hueter described Vargas, the truck, and the\\nlot. They immediately called agents in Illinois, who entered\\nthe lot by following someone through the gate. Approaching\\na truck that met Hueter’s description, the agents in Chicago\\nsent a photo to the agents in Ohio; Hueter identified the\\ntruck as Vargas’s. A dog was called in and alerted to the\\nodor of drugs. Agents then broke a window of the truck,\\nopened the door, and found eight more kilos of cocaine.\\n Vargas contends that the agents’ and the dog’s entry into\\nthe lot violated his rights. He does not say that it was im-\\nproper to break into the truck without a warrant; by the time\\nthe agents did this they had probable cause, based on\\nHueter’s statements plus confirmation (from the photo and\\nthe dog) that they had the right truck. But, citing Florida v.\\nJardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), and United States v. Jones, 565 U.S.\\n400 (2012), Vargas observes that an invasion of property is as\\nmuch within the Fourth Amendment as an invasion of pri-\\nvacy, and he insists that when the agents entered the lot they\\nlacked probable cause—and a parking lot is not a vehicle, so\\nthe agents could not benefit from the automobile exception\\nto the warrant requirement.\\n The argument is a dud, because Vargas neither owned\\nthe parking lot nor had a leasehold interest in any particular\\npart of it. Vargas was entitled to park his truck in any open\\nspace but not to exclude anyone else. Many other people al-\\nso parked there, and each could admit third parties. This is\\nwhy agents normally do not need probable cause or a war-\\n\\fNo. 18-1250 3\\n\\nrant to enter the vestibule of a multi-tenant building. See\\nUnited States v. Correa, 908 F.3d 208, 221–22 (7th Cir. 2018).\\n The only person whose property interest the agents in-\\nvaded was the lot’s owner, who isn’t complaining—and at\\nall events an invasion of the owner’s property (or privacy)\\nrights would not entitle Vargas to any remedy. Rights under\\nthe Fourth Amendment are personal; only someone whose\\nown rights have been transgressed is entitled to relief. See,\\ne.g., United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980); United States\\nv. Sweeney, 821 F.3d 893, 900 (7th Cir. 2016). No more need be\\nsaid about the search and seizure.\\n All of Vargas’s remaining arguments concern the conduct\\nof the trial. According to Vargas, the judge upbraided his\\nlawyer more often (and more sternly) than the prosecution’s\\nlawyer and erred in admiiing or excluding evidence. The\\ndistrict court considered and rejected these arguments when\\ndenying Vargas’s motion for a new trial. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\\n99021 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2016). Vargas hopes that we will find\\nthe contentions stronger than did the district judge.\\n Vargas presents almost all of his argument in constitu-\\ntional terms, asserting that the judge violated the Due Pro-\\ncess Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He mentions Fed. R.\\nEvid. 613 but in the main ignores both the Federal Rules of\\nEvidence and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He\\ndoes not maintain that any of these rules is unconstitutional\\nto the extent it allowed the judge to proceed as he did; in-\\nstead Vargas bypasses the rules in favor of the Constitution.\\nNor does he contend that the judge transgressed any super-\\nvisory rule laid down by the Supreme Court or by this court.\\nIt is, for him, the Constitution or nothing (the invocation of\\nRule 613 is so cursory that we need not discuss it), and the\\n\\f4 No. 18-1250\\n\\nConstitution at a high level of generality rather than any\\nconcrete rule of criminal procedure to be found in the Con-\\nfrontation Clause or anywhere else.\\n This is a hopeless strategy, because courts are obliged to\\nconsider statutory and rule-based arguments ahead of con-\\nstitutional ones. See, e.g., New York Transit Authority v. Beazer,\\n440 U.S. 568, 582–83 (1979). “Lawyers all too often invoke the\\nConstitution as if it were a panacea and bypass seemingly\\nmundane arguments based on statutes and regulations.\\nMimicking Gresham’s Law, flabby constitutional generalities\\ndrive out sound legal points.” Magala v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d\\n523, 526–27 (7th Cir. 2005). “Why counsel should start with\\nthe Constitution rather than the statutes and regulations that\\ngovern [these] proceedings is beyond us. Non-constitutional\\narguments always come first; constitutional contentions\\nmust be set aside until their resolution is unavoida-\\nble.” Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508 (7th Cir. 2006).\\n“Before taking up a constitutional issue, a federal court\\nshould satisfy itself that there is no available non-\\nconstitutional ground of decision.” There to Care, Inc. v.\\nCommissioner of the Indiana Department of Revenue, 19 F.3d\\n1165, 1167 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Spector Motor Service, Inc. v.\\nMcLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (1944)). See also BrockeL v. Spo-\\nkane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 501 (1985).\\n We illustrate this by considering one of Vargas’s eviden-\\ntiary arguments—the strongest one, as it seems to us, but\\none on which he has missed critical points.\\n During discovery, Vargas asked the prosecutor to identi-\\nfy any expert witnesses and describe the nature of the ex-\\nperts’ testimony. The prosecution made a reciprocal de-\\nmand. One potential witness identified by the prosecution\\n\\fNo. 18-1250 5\\n\\nwas Joseph Raschke, who would testify about how infor-\\nmation from cell towers could be used to locate Vargas and\\nHueter on the critical days. After the parties agreed to a\\nstipulation about cell-site evidence, the prosecution told the\\njudge that it would not call Raschke as a witness in its case-\\nin-chief. When Vargas tried to call Raschke in his own case,\\nthe prosecutor objected, because Vargas had not disclosed\\nRaschke as an expert for the defense or described the sub-\\njects of his testimony. The judge sustained the objection.\\nVargas now asserts that this was absurd—after all, the pros-\\necutor had to know what Raschke would have said on the\\nstand—and that absurd decisions must be unconstitutional.\\n Whether the judge erred depends not on the Due Process\\nClause but on Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C), which provides\\nthat at the prosecution’s request any defendant who has\\nmade an equivalent demand for expert disclosure must\\n“give to the government a wriien summary of any testimo-\\nny that the defense intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or\\n705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence … . This summary must\\ndescribe the witness’s opinions, the bases and reasons for\\nthose opinions, and the witness’s qualifications”. Vargas did\\nnot do this about Raschke; the omission is why the district\\njudge barred Vargas from calling Raschke at trial. And un-\\nless the defense plans to call an expert, already designated\\nby the prosecution, for exactly the maiers covered in the\\nprosecutor’s disclosure, it can’t be called absurd (let alone\\nunconstitutional) for the judge to enforce the Rule as wriien.\\nRule 16(b)(1)(C) thus sinks Vargas’s appellate argument un-\\nless courts have read this Rule, despite its text, as inapplica-\\nble to defendants who want to call witnesses already dis-\\nclosed by the prosecutor.\\n\\f6 No. 18-1250\\n\\n We could not find any decision holding that disclosure of\\nan expert by the prosecutor relieves the defense of a duty to\\nprovide its own disclosure, if the defense wants to call that\\nexpert. Nor could we find any decision in the other direction\\n(that is, we couldn’t find any decision holding that disclo-\\nsure by the defense relieved the prosecutor of its duty to dis-\\nclose the testimony that the same expert would give if called\\nby the prosecutor). The Rule is designed to ensure that each\\nside knows what an expert’s testimony would cover. See,\\ne.g., United States v. Bresil, 767 F.3d 124, 127 (1st Cir. 2014);\\nUnited States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 758 (4th Cir. 2002). The\\npossibility that one side will take an expert in a direction\\ndifferent from the other side’s planned destination affords a\\ngood reason why each must identify the potential “witness’s\\nopinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions”, no\\nmaier what the other side has disclosed.\\n Vargas has not addressed any of these subjects, because\\nhis brief does not mention Rule 16. When asked why at oral\\nargument, Vargas’s counsel asserted that no one pays any\\naiention to this Rule, so he did not need to bother. That is a\\nstaggering assertion. The prosecutor paid aiention; that’s\\nwhy an objection was made. The district judge enforced Rule\\n16 by sustaining the objection. And we enforce rules by in-\\nsisting that counsel address rather than ignore them. “There\\nis no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal\\ncase, and Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)] did not cre-\\nate one; as the Court wrote recently, ‘the Due Process Clause\\nhas liile to say regarding the amount of discovery which the\\nparties must be afforded … .’ Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470,\\n474 (1973).” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977).\\nSanctions for violating discovery rules also generally are\\nmaiers for the rules or statutes. See Michigan v. Lucas, 500\\n\\fNo. 18-1250 7\\n\\nU.S. 145 (1991) (judge entitled to exclude evidence after de-\\nfense failed to comply with a notice obligation). Only close\\naiention to Rule 16 might have offered Vargas a chance to\\nprevail.\\n None of Vargas’s other arguments requires discussion.\\nWe agree with him that the district judge should have been\\nmore even-handed (at least when the jury could overhear his\\nadmonitions to defense counsel), but neither on that subject\\nnor any other did the judge violate the Due Process Clause,\\nwhich in criminal cases deals with only egregious transgres-\\nsions of trial rules and decorum. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo,\\n416 U.S. 637 (1974).\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":663,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4587669,"string":"4,587,669"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Jeryme Morgan v. Minh Schott"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"16-2384"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, SYKES, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Diane S. Sykes\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 16-2384\\nJERYME MORGAN,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nMINH SCHOTT, TIM VEATH,\\nand HUDSON MAYNARD,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Illinois.\\n No. 13-cv-0881-SCW — Stephen C. Williams, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Illinois prison officials issued a dis-\\nciplinary report charging inmate Jeryme Morgan with\\noffenses stemming from a violent assault on fellow prison-\\ners. Morgan disputed the charges and asked the authorities\\nto call a witness to testify at his Adjustment Committee\\nhearing. But the Committee never called Morgan’s witness.\\nHe was found guilty and the Committee imposed punish-\\n\\f2 No. 16-2384\\n\\nment of one year of segregation, various status and access\\nrestrictions, and revocation of three months of good-time\\ncredits. Morgan filed a grievance challenging his punish-\\nment on due-process grounds and appealed its subsequent\\ndenial to the Administrative Review Board (“the Board”).\\nThe Board adjusted the revocation of good-time credits to\\none month but affirmed the Committee’s due-process ruling,\\nconcluding that Morgan’s witness request did not comply\\nwith prison rules.\\n Alleging a raft of constitutional violations, Morgan sued\\nthree officers for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming\\nthat the failure to call his witness violated his right to due\\nprocess. The officers moved for summary judgment citing\\nthe favorable-termination rule announced in Heck v.\\nHumphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Heck holds that “when a state\\nprisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court\\nmust consider whether a judgment in [his] favor … would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sen-\\ntence.” Id. at 487. Where a favorable judgment would have\\nthat effect, no § 1983 claim has accrued and “the complaint\\nmust be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that\\nthe conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id.\\nMorgan countered that Heck is inapplicable due to his waiv-\\ner of all claims relating to the revocation of his good-time\\ncredits. A magistrate judge rejected Morgan’s attempt to skirt\\nHeck and ruled that his due-process claim was not cogniza-\\nble under § 1983.\\n We affirm. Prisoners cannot make an end run around\\nHeck by filing an affidavit waiving challenges to the portion\\nof their punishment that revokes good-time credits. We\\nrecently addressed that very tactic and found it incompatible\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 3\\n\\nwith the Heck line of cases. Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d\\n1026 (7th Cir. 2016). Morgan provides no reason to question\\nHaywood, and we reaffirm its reasoning. Morgan’s attempt to\\nanalogize his case to Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005),\\nand Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011), misunderstands\\nthose decisions. Judgment in Morgan’s favor would neces-\\nsarily imply the invalidity of his prison discipline. Thus, no\\n§ 1983 claim has accrued. This suit is premature and must be\\ndismissed without prejudice.\\n I. Background\\n Morgan is serving sentences for robbery, armed robbery,\\nand sexual assault. For most of his incarceration—and at all\\ntimes relevant to this case—he has been housed at Menard\\nCorrectional Center (“Menard”). In January 2012 Officer\\nHudson Maynard issued a disciplinary report accusing\\nMorgan of taking part in an assault that occurred three\\nmonths earlier in Menard’s east yard. The report charged\\nMorgan with conspiring to attack the victims, joining the\\nattack, possessing dangerous contraband, causing a disturb-\\nance, interfering with prison investigations, and engaging in\\nunauthorized organizational activities.\\n Menard gives prisoners an opportunity to formally re-\\nquest witnesses at a disciplinary hearing; the disciplinary\\nreport provides a space to do so. If called, those witnesses\\ntestify at the prisoner’s Adjustment Committee hearing.\\nMorgan’s request was not a model of clarity. On the line\\nrequesting a description of the subject of the witness’s testi-\\nmony, Morgan wrote the name “James Lewis” followed by\\nthe words “where abouts.” On the line reserved for the\\nwitness’s name and other identifying information, Morgan\\nagain wrote “James Lewis” but nothing else.\\n\\f4 No. 16-2384\\n\\n At Morgan’s Adjustment Committee hearing on\\nJanuary 31, prison officials did not call James Lewis. The\\nCommittee, which included Lieutenant Minh Schott and\\nOfficer Tim Veath, found Morgan guilty and recommended\\nrevoking three months of good-time credits and adding one\\nyear of segregation, one year of lowered status, and several\\naccess restrictions. Morgan filed a grievance arguing that the\\nCommittee’s failure to call Lewis violated his right to due\\nprocess. Morgan’s grievance was denied, so he appealed to\\nthe Board. The Board ruled that Morgan’s witness request\\ndid not meet the minimum requirements under prison rules.\\nIllinois regulations require that such requests “shall be in\\nwriting on the space provided in the disciplinary report and\\nshall include an explanation of what the witnesses would\\nstate.” ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 20, § 504.80(f)(2). Because\\nMorgan failed to adequately identify his witness or describe\\nhis testimony, and because officials failed to locate a James\\nLewis at Menard, the Board concluded that Morgan’s hear-\\ning comported with due process.\\n Rather than challenge the Board’s ruling in state court,\\nMorgan filed a pro se complaint in the Southern District of\\nIllinois seeking damages under § 1983. He alleged numerous\\nconstitutional violations ranging from excessive force to\\ndeliberate indifference. Those claims were severed and\\nproceeded as a separate case. The district court did not\\ninitially identify a due-process claim in Morgan’s complaint.\\nHowever, a magistrate judge later found that Morgan had\\nadequately alleged a violation of due process against\\nLieutenant Schott and Officer Veath based on the Commit-\\ntee’s failure to call James Lewis. Schott and Veath moved for\\nsummary judgment, arguing that Morgan’s claim was barred\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 5\\n\\nby Heck, no reasonable jury could find a constitutional\\nviolation, and qualified immunity applies.\\n As part of Morgan’s strategy to avoid the Heck bar, he\\nfiled an affidavit purporting to “abandon any and all present\\nand future challenges” and “waiv[e] for all times all claims”\\npertaining to the portion of his punishment that impacted\\nthe duration of his confinement. He preserved only “claims\\nchallenging the sanctions affecting the conditions of [his]\\nconfinement.” Morgan argued that his affidavit rendered\\nHeck inapplicable, citing the Second Circuit’s decision in\\nPeralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2006).\\n The magistrate judge concluded that Heck barred\\nMorgan’s suit and entered summary judgment for Schott\\nand Veath, dismissing Morgan’s due-process claim with\\nprejudice. The judge rejected Morgan’s attempt to use strate-\\ngic waiver to “dodge” Heck. He said Morgan’s due-process\\nclaim “call[s] into question the validity of the prison disci-\\npline[] because to accept that claim necessarily implie[s] that\\nthe discipline was somehow invalid.”\\n II. Discussion\\n We review a summary judgment de novo, reading the\\nrecord in the light most favorable to Morgan and drawing all\\nreasonable inferences in his favor. Tolliver v. City of Chicago,\\n820 F.3d 237, 241 (7th Cir. 2016). Morgan renews his strate-\\ngic-waiver argument in an effort to avoid the Heck bar. He\\nalso attempts to evade Heck by arguing that success on the\\nmerits would mean at most a new hearing, not a reduction\\nof his term of imprisonment.\\n We begin with an overview of the favorable-termination\\nrule established in Heck v. Humphrey. Federal law affords\\n\\f6 No. 16-2384\\n\\nstate prisoners two venerable gateways to relief: the Civil\\nRights Act of 1871, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and habeas\\ncorpus review of state adjudications under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.\\nThey are not interchangeable. The Supreme Court made this\\nfact crystal clear in a line of cases barring § 1983 suits predi-\\ncated on claims reserved for habeas challenges. In Preiser v.\\nRodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 476 (1973), the Court evaluated a\\n§ 1983 claim attacking prison discipline proceedings on\\nconstitutional grounds and seeking restoration of good-time\\ncredits. The Court explained that habeas corpus—not\\n§ 1983—is the “specific instrument to obtain release” from\\nunlawful imprisonment. Id. at 486. Thus, when a prisoner\\nchallenges “the fact or duration of his confinement,” he fails\\nto state a cognizable § 1983 claim. Id. at 489.\\n The Court expanded on Preiser in Heck v. Humphrey,\\n512 U.S. at 486–87, in which the prisoner–plaintiff sought\\ndamages for wrongful conviction. Heck claimed that Indiana\\nprosecutors had destroyed exculpatory evidence and en-\\ngaged in an “unlawful, unreasonable, and arbitrary investi-\\ngation.” Id. at 479. The Court held that\\n in order to recover damages for [an] allegedly\\n unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,\\n or for other harm caused by actions whose un-\\n lawfulness would render a conviction or sen-\\n tence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that\\n the conviction or sentence has been reversed\\n on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\\n declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized\\n to make such determination, or called into\\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\\n of habeas corpus.\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 7\\n\\nId. at 486–87. The Court distinguished Wolff v. McDonnell,\\n418 U.S. 539 (1974), in which there was no “reason to be-\\nlieve[] that using the wrong procedures necessarily vitiated\\nthe denial of good-time credits.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 483. Con-\\nversely, a judgment in Heck’s favor would “necessarily\\nimply the invalidity of [Heck’s] conviction or sentence.” Id. at\\n487. When a judgment for the plaintiff would have that\\neffect, no § 1983 claim accrues until the plaintiff succeeds in\\ninvalidating the underlying conviction or sentence.\\n The Court extended Heck to the prison-discipline context\\nin Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). Balisok alleged that\\nthe presiding officer at his conduct hearing was biased and\\ndeprived him of the opportunity to present exculpatory\\nwitness testimony. Id. at 643. Some of Balisok’s good-time\\ncredits were revoked. He did not challenge the result of the\\nproceeding or the punishment he received. Instead, he\\nclaimed in a § 1983 suit that he was deprived of due process.\\nId. at 645. The Court held that judgment for Balisok would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of his disciplinary sentence.\\nId. at 648. The Court reasoned that denial of the opportunity\\nto present witnesses was “an obvious procedural defect, and\\nstate and federal courts have reinstated good-time credits\\n(absent a new hearing) when it is established.” Id. at 647.\\nThus, Heck’s favorable-termination rule applied. Id. at 648.\\nA. Strategic Waiver\\n Morgan argues that challenges to the conditions of a pris-\\noner’s confinement—as opposed to the duration of that\\nconfinement—do not implicate Heck, so a prisoner should be\\npermitted to challenge a disciplinary proceeding via § 1983 if\\nhe waives all challenges to duration-of-confinement sanc-\\n\\f8 No. 16-2384\\n\\ntions. Morgan’s is not a novel argument. We have rejected it\\nbefore and see no reason to change course.\\n When an inmate is found guilty of a disciplinary viola-\\ntion, prison officials can apply sanctions reducing the in-\\nmate’s privileges within the facility. They can also revoke\\ngood-time credits, a sanction that has the effect of lengthen-\\ning the inmate’s term of confinement. Morgan relies on\\nPeralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98, in which the Second Circuit\\nconsidered the mixed-sanctions scenario and chose to em-\\nbrace strategic waiver as a means of removing the Heck bar.\\nThe court held that a prisoner facing condition-of-\\nconfinement sanctions and duration-of-confinement sanc-\\ntions could challenge the former under § 1983 without\\ncomplying with Heck’s favorable-termination requirement.\\nId. at 104. All the prisoner must do is “abandon, not just now,\\nbut also in any future proceeding, any claims he may have\\nwith respect to the duration of his confinement that arise out\\nof the proceeding he is attacking.” Id.\\n We rejected Peralta in Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026.\\nThe approach Morgan urges us to adopt rests on a misun-\\nderstanding of Heck. The favorable-termination rule is more\\nthan a procedural hurdle that plaintiffs can skirt with artful\\ncomplaint drafting or opportunistic affidavits. Rather, it is\\ngrounded in substantive concerns about allowing conflicting\\njudgments. As we explained in Haywood, the Heck rule is “a\\nversion of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), under which\\nthe outstanding criminal judgment or disciplinary sanction,\\nas long as it stands, blocks any inconsistent civil judgment.”\\n842 F.3d at 1029. Neither Peralta nor Morgan can account for\\nthis aspect of Heck.\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 9\\n\\n Endorsing Morgan’s arguments would undercut another\\nfeature of the Court’s favorable-termination jurisprudence.\\nHeck held that “a § 1983 cause of action for damages at-\\ntributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does\\nnot accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invali-\\ndated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90 (emphasis added). Morgan’s\\nargument is incompatible with that holding. If a prisoner’s\\nchallenge to a disciplinary hearing implies the invalidity of\\nthe resulting sanctions, no § 1983 claim has accrued. And\\n“[i]f the claim has not accrued, it cannot matter what relief a\\nprisoner seeks.” Haywood, 842 F.3d at 1028. Selective waiver\\nsimply doesn’t alter the analysis.\\n Morgan concedes that Haywood controls his case and asks\\nus to overrule it. But we do not reverse our precedents\\nlightly; we need “compelling reasons” to do so. Russ v.\\nWatts, 414 F.3d 783, 788 (7th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court\\nhas not cast doubt on Haywood, and it does not represent a\\nminority approach among our sister circuits. See Glaser v.\\nWound Care Consultants, Inc., 570 F.3d 907, 915 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(discussing circumstances in which we reconsider our\\nprecedents). Moreover, we remain convinced that “Peralta is\\nincompatible with Heck and its successors.” Haywood,\\n842 F.3d at 1030. State prisoners cannot avoid the favorable-\\ntermination rule by engaging in strategic waiver. If judgment\\nfor a § 1983 plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity\\nof his punishment, the Heck rule applies and favorable\\ntermination of the underlying proceeding is a prerequisite to\\nrelief. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004).\\nB. Dotson and Skinner\\n Morgan also compares his case to Wilkinson v. Dotson,\\n544 U.S. 74 (2005), and Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011),\\n\\f10 No. 16-2384\\n\\nbut the analogy is inapt. In Dotson the Court dealt with two\\n§ 1983 suits challenging the retroactivity of certain state\\nparole-hearing procedures on due-process grounds. The\\nplaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction order-\\ning parole hearings under a different set of rules. Dotson,\\n544 U.S. at 76–77. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims\\nwere cognizable under § 1983 because success would mean\\n“new [parole] eligibility review” for one plaintiff and “a new\\nparole hearing” for the other, neither of which would “nec-\\nessarily spell immediate or speedier release” or imply the\\ninvalidity of their sentences. Id. at 81 (emphasis omitted). In\\nSkinner the Court allowed a Texas prisoner to seek postcon-\\nviction DNA testing using a § 1983 suit because “[s]uccess …\\ngains for the prisoner only access to the DNA evidence,\\nwhich may prove exculpatory, inculpatory, or inconclusive.”\\n562 U.S. at 525. Thus, judgment for the plaintiff wouldn’t\\nnecessarily imply unlawful confinement by the State.\\n It’s not clear that Morgan made this argument below. But\\nin the interest of completeness, we address it here. Morgan\\nmisses a key distinction between his case and Dotson and\\nSkinner—a distinction we’ve discussed before. See Burd v.\\nSessler, 702 F.3d 429, 432–34 (7th Cir. 2012). The plaintiffs in\\nDotson and Skinner sought purely prospective relief: parole\\nhearings under different rules in Dotson; DNA testing in\\nSkinner. As we explained in Burd, the Dotson and Skinner\\nplaintiffs sought entirely forward-looking relief: access to\\n“procedural pathways that, if successfully employed, might\\n[have led] to the overturning of the underlying conviction.”\\nBurd, 702 F.3d at 433 (emphasis added). Judgment for those\\nplaintiffs would not have implied the invalidity of their\\nconvictions or sentences.\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 11\\n\\n Morgan’s claim, in contrast, is entirely backward looking.\\nHe alleges a due-process violation at the hearing that gener-\\nated his disciplinary sanctions. A damages judgment for\\nMorgan would amount to a judicial determination that\\nprison officials infringed Morgan’s constitutional rights by\\nfailing to call a witness in his defense, rendering the pro-\\nceeding unfair. Such a judgment would straightforwardly\\nimply the invalidity of his punishment, triggering Heck’s\\nfavorable-termination rule. Balisok, 520 U.S. at 648; see also\\nLusz v. Scott, 126 F.3d 1018, 1022 (7th Cir. 1997) (applying the\\nHeck bar where the plaintiff argued “that he was denied the\\nopportunity to call requested witnesses in his favor”). We’ve\\nclarified before that “‘[i]mply’ is not synonymous with\\n‘invalidate.’” Hill v. Murphy, 785 F.3d 242, 248 (7th Cir. 2015).\\nJudgment in Morgan’s favor would allow him “to argue that\\nhe had been determined by a court to have been unjustly”\\npunished—an outcome that “Heck forbids.” Id.\\n Morgan argues that Illinois regulations make all the dif-\\nference. By rule, “[t]he Director, Deputy Director or Chief\\nAdministrative Officer shall remand the decision to the\\nAdjustment Committee for new proceedings if the proceed-\\nings are found to be defective due to[] … [i]mproper exclu-\\nsion of witnesses.” ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 20, § 504.90(a)(3). In\\nMorgan’s view this provision makes his case like Dotson and\\nSkinner, where success merely meant access to new proceed-\\nings. Morgan claims that a judgment in his favor would\\nbring “a new hearing that appropriately considers previous-\\nly excluded evidence.” The hearing could go either way—\\nlike the parole hearings in Dotson or the testing in Skinner—\\nso Heck poses no problem for Morgan’s suit.\\n\\f12 No. 16-2384\\n\\n We disagree. Heck is not inapplicable merely because\\nstate prison regulations call for replacement proceedings in\\ncertain situations. Heck prevents the entry of any judgment\\nthat would cast doubt on the validity of the plaintiff’s pun-\\nishment or conviction. Burd, 702 F.3d at 433. To repeat, in\\nDotson the plaintiffs sought entirely forward-looking relief in\\nthe form of new hearings under a different set of rules.\\nJudgment granting that relief wouldn’t impugn their sen-\\ntences. Morgan seeks money damages—a classic retrospec-\\ntive remedy. That Morgan might receive additional\\nadministrative proceedings as a collateral consequence of\\nreceiving a damages judgment does not render that hypo-\\nthetical judgment any more consistent with the validity of\\nhis disciplinary punishment.\\n It’s worth noting that Morgan could have challenged the\\nBoard’s ruling in other ways. Id. at 436 (holding that “Heck\\napplies where a § 1983 plaintiff could have sought collateral\\nrelief … but declined the opportunity”). Under Illinois law\\nthe writ of certiorari empowers circuit courts to review\\nadministrative determinations “when the act conferring\\npower on the agency does not expressly adopt the Adminis-\\ntrative Review Law and provides for no other form of re-\\nview.” Hanrahan v. Williams, 673 N.E.2d 251, 253 (Ill. 1996).\\nIllinois statutes governing prison discipline do not provide\\nfor judicial review, so “prison disciplinary proceedings are\\nreviewable in an action for certiorari.” Fillmore v. Taylor,\\n80 N.E.3d 835, 849 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). Alternatively, Morgan\\ncould have asked a state court to issue a writ of mandamus\\nordering Menard officials to conduct a new hearing. Dye v.\\nPierce, 868 N.E.2d 293, 296 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (“An allegation\\nof a due-process-rights violation … states a cause of action in\\nmandamus.”). And after exhausting state review, he could\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 13\\n\\nhave sought relief under the federal habeas corpus statute.\\nInstead he immediately sued for money damages under\\n§ 1983—and ran directly into Heck.\\n Although Morgan does not currently have a cognizable\\n§ 1983 claim, it is at least possible that he could convince a\\nstate court to provide the favorable termination required by\\nHeck. Illinois courts apply a six-month limitations period to\\ncertiorari actions, but a court might hear a late certiorari\\naction if no “public detriment or inconvenience would result\\nfrom [the] delay.” Alicea v. Snyder, 748 N.E.2d 285, 290 (Ill.\\nApp. Ct. 2001).\\n Heck-barred claims must be dismissed. Johnson v.\\nWinstead, 900 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. 2018). But given the\\npossibility of future state-court proceedings, Morgan’s claim\\nshould have been dismissed without prejudice. See Moore v.\\nBurge, 771 F.3d 444, 446 (7th Cir. 2014); Polzin v. Gage,\\n636 F.3d 834, 839 (7th Cir. 2011). We modify the judgment to\\nreflect a dismissal without prejudice. As modified, the\\njudgment is affirmed.\\n AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4364922/\", \"author_raw\": \"Diane S. Sykes\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587669/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Jeryme Morgan v. Minh Schott\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 16-2384\nJERYME MORGAN,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nMINH SCHOTT, TIM VEATH,\nand HUDSON MAYNARD,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Southern District of Illinois.\n No. 13-cv-0881-SCW — Stephen C. Williams, Magistrate Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Illinois prison officials issued a dis-\nciplinary report charging inmate Jeryme Morgan with\noffenses stemming from a violent assault on fellow prison-\ners. Morgan disputed the charges and asked the authorities\nto call a witness to testify at his Adjustment Committee\nhearing. But the Committee never called Morgan’s witness.\nHe was found guilty and the Committee imposed punish-\n\f2 No. 16-2384\n\nment of one year of segregation, various status and access\nrestrictions, and revocation of three months of good-time\ncredits. Morgan filed a grievance challenging his punish-\nment on due-process grounds and appealed its subsequent\ndenial to the Administrative Review Board (“the Board”).\nThe Board adjusted the revocation of good-time credits to\none month but affirmed the Committee’s due-process ruling,\nconcluding that Morgan’s witness request did not comply\nwith prison rules.\n Alleging a raft of constitutional violations, Morgan sued\nthree officers for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming\nthat the failure to call his witness violated his right to due\nprocess. The officers moved for summary judgment citing\nthe favorable-termination rule announced in Heck v.\nHumphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Heck holds that “when a state\nprisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court\nmust consider whether a judgment in [his] favor … would\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sen-\ntence.” Id. at 487. Where a favorable judgment would have\nthat effect, no § 1983 claim has accrued and “the complaint\nmust be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that\nthe conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id.\nMorgan countered that Heck is inapplicable due to his waiv-\ner of all claims relating to the revocation of his good-time\ncredits. A magistrate judge rejected Morgan’s attempt to skirt\nHeck and ruled that his due-process claim was not cogniza-\nble under § 1983.\n We affirm. Prisoners cannot make an end run around\nHeck by filing an affidavit waiving challenges to the portion\nof their punishment that revokes good-time credits. We\nrecently addressed that very tactic and found it incompatible\n\fNo. 16-2384 3\n\nwith the Heck line of cases. Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d\n1026 (7th Cir. 2016). Morgan provides no reason to question\nHaywood, and we reaffirm its reasoning. Morgan’s attempt to\nanalogize his case to Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005),\nand Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011), misunderstands\nthose decisions. Judgment in Morgan’s favor would neces-\nsarily imply the invalidity of his prison discipline. Thus, no\n§ 1983 claim has accrued. This suit is premature and must be\ndismissed without prejudice.\n I. Background\n Morgan is serving sentences for robbery, armed robbery,\nand sexual assault. For most of his incarceration—and at all\ntimes relevant to this case—he has been housed at Menard\nCorrectional Center (“Menard”). In January 2012 Officer\nHudson Maynard issued a disciplinary report accusing\nMorgan of taking part in an assault that occurred three\nmonths earlier in Menard’s east yard. The report charged\nMorgan with conspiring to attack the victims, joining the\nattack, possessing dangerous contraband, causing a disturb-\nance, interfering with prison investigations, and engaging in\nunauthorized organizational activities.\n Menard gives prisoners an opportunity to formally re-\nquest witnesses at a disciplinary hearing; the disciplinary\nreport provides a space to do so. If called, those witnesses\ntestify at the prisoner’s Adjustment Committee hearing.\nMorgan’s request was not a model of clarity. On the line\nrequesting a description of the subject of the witness’s testi-\nmony, Morgan wrote the name “James Lewis” followed by\nthe words “where abouts.” On the line reserved for the\nwitness’s name and other identifying information, Morgan\nagain wrote “James Lewis” but nothing else.\n\f4 No. 16-2384\n\n At Morgan’s Adjustment Committee hearing on\nJanuary 31, prison officials did not call James Lewis. The\nCommittee, which included Lieutenant Minh Schott and\nOfficer Tim Veath, found Morgan guilty and recommended\nrevoking three months of good-time credits and adding one\nyear of segregation, one year of lowered status, and several\naccess restrictions. Morgan filed a grievance arguing that the\nCommittee’s failure to call Lewis violated his right to due\nprocess. Morgan’s grievance was denied, so he appealed to\nthe Board. The Board ruled that Morgan’s witness request\ndid not meet the minimum requirements under prison rules.\nIllinois regulations require that such requests “shall be in\nwriting on the space provided in the disciplinary report and\nshall include an explanation of what the witnesses would\nstate.” ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 20, § 504.80(f)(2). Because\nMorgan failed to adequately identify his witness or describe\nhis testimony, and because officials failed to locate a James\nLewis at Menard, the Board concluded that Morgan’s hear-\ning comported with due process.\n Rather than challenge the Board’s ruling in state court,\nMorgan filed a pro se complaint in the Southern District of\nIllinois seeking damages under § 1983. He alleged numerous\nconstitutional violations ranging from excessive force to\ndeliberate indifference. Those claims were severed and\nproceeded as a separate case. The district court did not\ninitially identify a due-process claim in Morgan’s complaint.\nHowever, a magistrate judge later found that Morgan had\nadequately alleged a violation of due process against\nLieutenant Schott and Officer Veath based on the Commit-\ntee’s failure to call James Lewis. Schott and Veath moved for\nsummary judgment, arguing that Morgan’s claim was barred\n\fNo. 16-2384 5\n\nby Heck, no reasonable jury could find a constitutional\nviolation, and qualified immunity applies.\n As part of Morgan’s strategy to avoid the Heck bar, he\nfiled an affidavit purporting to “abandon any and all present\nand future challenges” and “waiv[e] for all times all claims”\npertaining to the portion of his punishment that impacted\nthe duration of his confinement. He preserved only “claims\nchallenging the sanctions affecting the conditions of [his]\nconfinement.” Morgan argued that his affidavit rendered\nHeck inapplicable, citing the Second Circuit’s decision in\nPeralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2006).\n The magistrate judge concluded that Heck barred\nMorgan’s suit and entered summary judgment for Schott\nand Veath, dismissing Morgan’s due-process claim with\nprejudice. The judge rejected Morgan’s attempt to use strate-\ngic waiver to “dodge” Heck. He said Morgan’s due-process\nclaim “call[s] into question the validity of the prison disci-\npline[] because to accept that claim necessarily implie[s] that\nthe discipline was somehow invalid.”\n II. Discussion\n We review a summary judgment de novo, reading the\nrecord in the light most favorable to Morgan and drawing all\nreasonable inferences in his favor. Tolliver v. City of Chicago,\n820 F.3d 237, 241 (7th Cir. 2016). Morgan renews his strate-\ngic-waiver argument in an effort to avoid the Heck bar. He\nalso attempts to evade Heck by arguing that success on the\nmerits would mean at most a new hearing, not a reduction\nof his term of imprisonment.\n We begin with an overview of the favorable-termination\nrule established in Heck v. Humphrey. Federal law affords\n\f6 No. 16-2384\n\nstate prisoners two venerable gateways to relief: the Civil\nRights Act of 1871, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and habeas\ncorpus review of state adjudications under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.\nThey are not interchangeable. The Supreme Court made this\nfact crystal clear in a line of cases barring § 1983 suits predi-\ncated on claims reserved for habeas challenges. In Preiser v.\nRodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 476 (1973), the Court evaluated a\n§ 1983 claim attacking prison discipline proceedings on\nconstitutional grounds and seeking restoration of good-time\ncredits. The Court explained that habeas corpus—not\n§ 1983—is the “specific instrument to obtain release” from\nunlawful imprisonment. Id. at 486. Thus, when a prisoner\nchallenges “the fact or duration of his confinement,” he fails\nto state a cognizable § 1983 claim. Id. at 489.\n The Court expanded on Preiser in Heck v. Humphrey,\n512 U.S. at 486–87, in which the prisoner–plaintiff sought\ndamages for wrongful conviction. Heck claimed that Indiana\nprosecutors had destroyed exculpatory evidence and en-\ngaged in an “unlawful, unreasonable, and arbitrary investi-\ngation.” Id. at 479. The Court held that\n in order to recover damages for [an] allegedly\n unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,\n or for other harm caused by actions whose un-\n lawfulness would render a conviction or sen-\n tence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that\n the conviction or sentence has been reversed\n on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\n declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized\n to make such determination, or called into\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\n of habeas corpus.\n\fNo. 16-2384 7\n\nId. at 486–87. The Court distinguished Wolff v. McDonnell,\n418 U.S. 539 (1974), in which there was no “reason to be-\nlieve[] that using the wrong procedures necessarily vitiated\nthe denial of good-time credits.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 483. Con-\nversely, a judgment in Heck’s favor would “necessarily\nimply the invalidity of [Heck’s] conviction or sentence.” Id. at\n487. When a judgment for the plaintiff would have that\neffect, no § 1983 claim accrues until the plaintiff succeeds in\ninvalidating the underlying conviction or sentence.\n The Court extended Heck to the prison-discipline context\nin Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). Balisok alleged that\nthe presiding officer at his conduct hearing was biased and\ndeprived him of the opportunity to present exculpatory\nwitness testimony. Id. at 643. Some of Balisok’s good-time\ncredits were revoked. He did not challenge the result of the\nproceeding or the punishment he received. Instead, he\nclaimed in a § 1983 suit that he was deprived of due process.\nId. at 645. The Court held that judgment for Balisok would\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of his disciplinary sentence.\nId. at 648. The Court reasoned that denial of the opportunity\nto present witnesses was “an obvious procedural defect, and\nstate and federal courts have reinstated good-time credits\n(absent a new hearing) when it is established.” Id. at 647.\nThus, Heck’s favorable-termination rule applied. Id. at 648.\nA. Strategic Waiver\n Morgan argues that challenges to the conditions of a pris-\noner’s confinement—as opposed to the duration of that\nconfinement—do not implicate Heck, so a prisoner should be\npermitted to challenge a disciplinary proceeding via § 1983 if\nhe waives all challenges to duration-of-confinement sanc-\n\f8 No. 16-2384\n\ntions. Morgan’s is not a novel argument. We have rejected it\nbefore and see no reason to change course.\n When an inmate is found guilty of a disciplinary viola-\ntion, prison officials can apply sanctions reducing the in-\nmate’s privileges within the facility. They can also revoke\ngood-time credits, a sanction that has the effect of lengthen-\ning the inmate’s term of confinement. Morgan relies on\nPeralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98, in which the Second Circuit\nconsidered the mixed-sanctions scenario and chose to em-\nbrace strategic waiver as a means of removing the Heck bar.\nThe court held that a prisoner facing condition-of-\nconfinement sanctions and duration-of-confinement sanc-\ntions could challenge the former under § 1983 without\ncomplying with Heck’s favorable-termination requirement.\nId. at 104. All the prisoner must do is “abandon, not just now,\nbut also in any future proceeding, any claims he may have\nwith respect to the duration of his confinement that arise out\nof the proceeding he is attacking.” Id.\n We rejected Peralta in Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026.\nThe approach Morgan urges us to adopt rests on a misun-\nderstanding of Heck. The favorable-termination rule is more\nthan a procedural hurdle that plaintiffs can skirt with artful\ncomplaint drafting or opportunistic affidavits. Rather, it is\ngrounded in substantive concerns about allowing conflicting\njudgments. As we explained in Haywood, the Heck rule is “a\nversion of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), under which\nthe outstanding criminal judgment or disciplinary sanction,\nas long as it stands, blocks any inconsistent civil judgment.”\n842 F.3d at 1029. Neither Peralta nor Morgan can account for\nthis aspect of Heck.\n\fNo. 16-2384 9\n\n Endorsing Morgan’s arguments would undercut another\nfeature of the Court’s favorable-termination jurisprudence.\nHeck held that “a § 1983 cause of action for damages at-\ntributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does\nnot accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invali-\ndated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90 (emphasis added). Morgan’s\nargument is incompatible with that holding. If a prisoner’s\nchallenge to a disciplinary hearing implies the invalidity of\nthe resulting sanctions, no § 1983 claim has accrued. And\n“[i]f the claim has not accrued, it cannot matter what relief a\nprisoner seeks.” Haywood, 842 F.3d at 1028. Selective waiver\nsimply doesn’t alter the analysis.\n Morgan concedes that Haywood controls his case and asks\nus to overrule it. But we do not reverse our precedents\nlightly; we need “compelling reasons” to do so. Russ v.\nWatts, 414 F.3d 783, 788 (7th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court\nhas not cast doubt on Haywood, and it does not represent a\nminority approach among our sister circuits. See Glaser v.\nWound Care Consultants, Inc., 570 F.3d 907, 915 (7th Cir. 2009)\n(discussing circumstances in which we reconsider our\nprecedents). Moreover, we remain convinced that “Peralta is\nincompatible with Heck and its successors.” Haywood,\n842 F.3d at 1030. State prisoners cannot avoid the favorable-\ntermination rule by engaging in strategic waiver. If judgment\nfor a § 1983 plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity\nof his punishment, the Heck rule applies and favorable\ntermination of the underlying proceeding is a prerequisite to\nrelief. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004).\nB. Dotson and Skinner\n Morgan also compares his case to Wilkinson v. Dotson,\n544 U.S. 74 (2005), and Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011),\n\f10 No. 16-2384\n\nbut the analogy is inapt. In Dotson the Court dealt with two\n§ 1983 suits challenging the retroactivity of certain state\nparole-hearing procedures on due-process grounds. The\nplaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction order-\ning parole hearings under a different set of rules. Dotson,\n544 U.S. at 76–77. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims\nwere cognizable under § 1983 because success would mean\n“new [parole] eligibility review” for one plaintiff and “a new\nparole hearing” for the other, neither of which would “nec-\nessarily spell immediate or speedier release” or imply the\ninvalidity of their sentences. Id. at 81 (emphasis omitted). In\nSkinner the Court allowed a Texas prisoner to seek postcon-\nviction DNA testing using a § 1983 suit because “[s]uccess …\ngains for the prisoner only access to the DNA evidence,\nwhich may prove exculpatory, inculpatory, or inconclusive.”\n562 U.S. at 525. Thus, judgment for the plaintiff wouldn’t\nnecessarily imply unlawful confinement by the State.\n It’s not clear that Morgan made this argument below. But\nin the interest of completeness, we address it here. Morgan\nmisses a key distinction between his case and Dotson and\nSkinner—a distinction we’ve discussed before. See Burd v.\nSessler, 702 F.3d 429, 432–34 (7th Cir. 2012). The plaintiffs in\nDotson and Skinner sought purely prospective relief: parole\nhearings under different rules in Dotson; DNA testing in\nSkinner. As we explained in Burd, the Dotson and Skinner\nplaintiffs sought entirely forward-looking relief: access to\n“procedural pathways that, if successfully employed, might\n[have led] to the overturning of the underlying conviction.”\nBurd, 702 F.3d at 433 (emphasis added). Judgment for those\nplaintiffs would not have implied the invalidity of their\nconvictions or sentences.\n\fNo. 16-2384 11\n\n Morgan’s claim, in contrast, is entirely backward looking.\nHe alleges a due-process violation at the hearing that gener-\nated his disciplinary sanctions. A damages judgment for\nMorgan would amount to a judicial determination that\nprison officials infringed Morgan’s constitutional rights by\nfailing to call a witness in his defense, rendering the pro-\nceeding unfair. Such a judgment would straightforwardly\nimply the invalidity of his punishment, triggering Heck’s\nfavorable-termination rule. Balisok, 520 U.S. at 648; see also\nLusz v. Scott, 126 F.3d 1018, 1022 (7th Cir. 1997) (applying the\nHeck bar where the plaintiff argued “that he was denied the\nopportunity to call requested witnesses in his favor”). We’ve\nclarified before that “‘[i]mply’ is not synonymous with\n‘invalidate.’” Hill v. Murphy, 785 F.3d 242, 248 (7th Cir. 2015).\nJudgment in Morgan’s favor would allow him “to argue that\nhe had been determined by a court to have been unjustly”\npunished—an outcome that “Heck forbids.” Id.\n Morgan argues that Illinois regulations make all the dif-\nference. By rule, “[t]he Director, Deputy Director or Chief\nAdministrative Officer shall remand the decision to the\nAdjustment Committee for new proceedings if the proceed-\nings are found to be defective due to[] … [i]mproper exclu-\nsion of witnesses.” ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 20, § 504.90(a)(3). In\nMorgan’s view this provision makes his case like Dotson and\nSkinner, where success merely meant access to new proceed-\nings. Morgan claims that a judgment in his favor would\nbring “a new hearing that appropriately considers previous-\nly excluded evidence.” The hearing could go either way—\nlike the parole hearings in Dotson or the testing in Skinner—\nso Heck poses no problem for Morgan’s suit.\n\f12 No. 16-2384\n\n We disagree. Heck is not inapplicable merely because\nstate prison regulations call for replacement proceedings in\ncertain situations. Heck prevents the entry of any judgment\nthat would cast doubt on the validity of the plaintiff’s pun-\nishment or conviction. Burd, 702 F.3d at 433. To repeat, in\nDotson the plaintiffs sought entirely forward-looking relief in\nthe form of new hearings under a different set of rules.\nJudgment granting that relief wouldn’t impugn their sen-\ntences. Morgan seeks money damages—a classic retrospec-\ntive remedy. That Morgan might receive additional\nadministrative proceedings as a collateral consequence of\nreceiving a damages judgment does not render that hypo-\nthetical judgment any more consistent with the validity of\nhis disciplinary punishment.\n It’s worth noting that Morgan could have challenged the\nBoard’s ruling in other ways. Id. at 436 (holding that “Heck\napplies where a § 1983 plaintiff could have sought collateral\nrelief … but declined the opportunity”). Under Illinois law\nthe writ of certiorari empowers circuit courts to review\nadministrative determinations “when the act conferring\npower on the agency does not expressly adopt the Adminis-\ntrative Review Law and provides for no other form of re-\nview.” Hanrahan v. Williams, 673 N.E.2d 251, 253 (Ill. 1996).\nIllinois statutes governing prison discipline do not provide\nfor judicial review, so “prison disciplinary proceedings are\nreviewable in an action for certiorari.” Fillmore v. Taylor,\n80 N.E.3d 835, 849 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). Alternatively, Morgan\ncould have asked a state court to issue a writ of mandamus\nordering Menard officials to conduct a new hearing. Dye v.\nPierce, 868 N.E.2d 293, 296 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (“An allegation\nof a due-process-rights violation … states a cause of action in\nmandamus.”). And after exhausting state review, he could\n\fNo. 16-2384 13\n\nhave sought relief under the federal habeas corpus statute.\nInstead he immediately sued for money damages under\n§ 1983—and ran directly into Heck.\n Although Morgan does not currently have a cognizable\n§ 1983 claim, it is at least possible that he could convince a\nstate court to provide the favorable termination required by\nHeck. Illinois courts apply a six-month limitations period to\ncertiorari actions, but a court might hear a late certiorari\naction if no “public detriment or inconvenience would result\nfrom [the] delay.” Alicea v. Snyder, 748 N.E.2d 285, 290 (Ill.\nApp. Ct. 2001).\n Heck-barred claims must be dismissed. Johnson v.\nWinstead, 900 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. 2018). But given the\npossibility of future state-court proceedings, Morgan’s claim\nshould have been dismissed without prejudice. See Moore v.\nBurge, 771 F.3d 444, 446 (7th Cir. 2014); Polzin v. Gage,\n636 F.3d 834, 839 (7th Cir. 2011). We modify the judgment to\nreflect a dismissal without prejudice. As modified, the\njudgment is affirmed.\n AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Jeryme Morgan v. Minh Schott\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 16-2384\\nJERYME MORGAN,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nMINH SCHOTT, TIM VEATH,\\nand HUDSON MAYNARD,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Illinois.\\n No. 13-cv-0881-SCW — Stephen C. Williams, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Illinois prison officials issued a dis-\\nciplinary report charging inmate Jeryme Morgan with\\noffenses stemming from a violent assault on fellow prison-\\ners. Morgan disputed the charges and asked the authorities\\nto call a witness to testify at his Adjustment Committee\\nhearing. But the Committee never called Morgan’s witness.\\nHe was found guilty and the Committee imposed punish-\\n\\f2 No. 16-2384\\n\\nment of one year of segregation, various status and access\\nrestrictions, and revocation of three months of good-time\\ncredits. Morgan filed a grievance challenging his punish-\\nment on due-process grounds and appealed its subsequent\\ndenial to the Administrative Review Board (“the Board”).\\nThe Board adjusted the revocation of good-time credits to\\none month but affirmed the Committee’s due-process ruling,\\nconcluding that Morgan’s witness request did not comply\\nwith prison rules.\\n Alleging a raft of constitutional violations, Morgan sued\\nthree officers for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming\\nthat the failure to call his witness violated his right to due\\nprocess. The officers moved for summary judgment citing\\nthe favorable-termination rule announced in Heck v.\\nHumphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Heck holds that “when a state\\nprisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court\\nmust consider whether a judgment in [his] favor … would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sen-\\ntence.” Id. at 487. Where a favorable judgment would have\\nthat effect, no § 1983 claim has accrued and “the complaint\\nmust be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that\\nthe conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id.\\nMorgan countered that Heck is inapplicable due to his waiv-\\ner of all claims relating to the revocation of his good-time\\ncredits. A magistrate judge rejected Morgan’s attempt to skirt\\nHeck and ruled that his due-process claim was not cogniza-\\nble under § 1983.\\n We affirm. Prisoners cannot make an end run around\\nHeck by filing an affidavit waiving challenges to the portion\\nof their punishment that revokes good-time credits. We\\nrecently addressed that very tactic and found it incompatible\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 3\\n\\nwith the Heck line of cases. Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d\\n1026 (7th Cir. 2016). Morgan provides no reason to question\\nHaywood, and we reaffirm its reasoning. Morgan’s attempt to\\nanalogize his case to Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005),\\nand Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011), misunderstands\\nthose decisions. Judgment in Morgan’s favor would neces-\\nsarily imply the invalidity of his prison discipline. Thus, no\\n§ 1983 claim has accrued. This suit is premature and must be\\ndismissed without prejudice.\\n I. Background\\n Morgan is serving sentences for robbery, armed robbery,\\nand sexual assault. For most of his incarceration—and at all\\ntimes relevant to this case—he has been housed at Menard\\nCorrectional Center (“Menard”). In January 2012 Officer\\nHudson Maynard issued a disciplinary report accusing\\nMorgan of taking part in an assault that occurred three\\nmonths earlier in Menard’s east yard. The report charged\\nMorgan with conspiring to attack the victims, joining the\\nattack, possessing dangerous contraband, causing a disturb-\\nance, interfering with prison investigations, and engaging in\\nunauthorized organizational activities.\\n Menard gives prisoners an opportunity to formally re-\\nquest witnesses at a disciplinary hearing; the disciplinary\\nreport provides a space to do so. If called, those witnesses\\ntestify at the prisoner’s Adjustment Committee hearing.\\nMorgan’s request was not a model of clarity. On the line\\nrequesting a description of the subject of the witness’s testi-\\nmony, Morgan wrote the name “James Lewis” followed by\\nthe words “where abouts.” On the line reserved for the\\nwitness’s name and other identifying information, Morgan\\nagain wrote “James Lewis” but nothing else.\\n\\f4 No. 16-2384\\n\\n At Morgan’s Adjustment Committee hearing on\\nJanuary 31, prison officials did not call James Lewis. The\\nCommittee, which included Lieutenant Minh Schott and\\nOfficer Tim Veath, found Morgan guilty and recommended\\nrevoking three months of good-time credits and adding one\\nyear of segregation, one year of lowered status, and several\\naccess restrictions. Morgan filed a grievance arguing that the\\nCommittee’s failure to call Lewis violated his right to due\\nprocess. Morgan’s grievance was denied, so he appealed to\\nthe Board. The Board ruled that Morgan’s witness request\\ndid not meet the minimum requirements under prison rules.\\nIllinois regulations require that such requests “shall be in\\nwriting on the space provided in the disciplinary report and\\nshall include an explanation of what the witnesses would\\nstate.” ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 20, § 504.80(f)(2). Because\\nMorgan failed to adequately identify his witness or describe\\nhis testimony, and because officials failed to locate a James\\nLewis at Menard, the Board concluded that Morgan’s hear-\\ning comported with due process.\\n Rather than challenge the Board’s ruling in state court,\\nMorgan filed a pro se complaint in the Southern District of\\nIllinois seeking damages under § 1983. He alleged numerous\\nconstitutional violations ranging from excessive force to\\ndeliberate indifference. Those claims were severed and\\nproceeded as a separate case. The district court did not\\ninitially identify a due-process claim in Morgan’s complaint.\\nHowever, a magistrate judge later found that Morgan had\\nadequately alleged a violation of due process against\\nLieutenant Schott and Officer Veath based on the Commit-\\ntee’s failure to call James Lewis. Schott and Veath moved for\\nsummary judgment, arguing that Morgan’s claim was barred\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 5\\n\\nby Heck, no reasonable jury could find a constitutional\\nviolation, and qualified immunity applies.\\n As part of Morgan’s strategy to avoid the Heck bar, he\\nfiled an affidavit purporting to “abandon any and all present\\nand future challenges” and “waiv[e] for all times all claims”\\npertaining to the portion of his punishment that impacted\\nthe duration of his confinement. He preserved only “claims\\nchallenging the sanctions affecting the conditions of [his]\\nconfinement.” Morgan argued that his affidavit rendered\\nHeck inapplicable, citing the Second Circuit’s decision in\\nPeralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2006).\\n The magistrate judge concluded that Heck barred\\nMorgan’s suit and entered summary judgment for Schott\\nand Veath, dismissing Morgan’s due-process claim with\\nprejudice. The judge rejected Morgan’s attempt to use strate-\\ngic waiver to “dodge” Heck. He said Morgan’s due-process\\nclaim “call[s] into question the validity of the prison disci-\\npline[] because to accept that claim necessarily implie[s] that\\nthe discipline was somehow invalid.”\\n II. Discussion\\n We review a summary judgment de novo, reading the\\nrecord in the light most favorable to Morgan and drawing all\\nreasonable inferences in his favor. Tolliver v. City of Chicago,\\n820 F.3d 237, 241 (7th Cir. 2016). Morgan renews his strate-\\ngic-waiver argument in an effort to avoid the Heck bar. He\\nalso attempts to evade Heck by arguing that success on the\\nmerits would mean at most a new hearing, not a reduction\\nof his term of imprisonment.\\n We begin with an overview of the favorable-termination\\nrule established in Heck v. Humphrey. Federal law affords\\n\\f6 No. 16-2384\\n\\nstate prisoners two venerable gateways to relief: the Civil\\nRights Act of 1871, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and habeas\\ncorpus review of state adjudications under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.\\nThey are not interchangeable. The Supreme Court made this\\nfact crystal clear in a line of cases barring § 1983 suits predi-\\ncated on claims reserved for habeas challenges. In Preiser v.\\nRodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 476 (1973), the Court evaluated a\\n§ 1983 claim attacking prison discipline proceedings on\\nconstitutional grounds and seeking restoration of good-time\\ncredits. The Court explained that habeas corpus—not\\n§ 1983—is the “specific instrument to obtain release” from\\nunlawful imprisonment. Id. at 486. Thus, when a prisoner\\nchallenges “the fact or duration of his confinement,” he fails\\nto state a cognizable § 1983 claim. Id. at 489.\\n The Court expanded on Preiser in Heck v. Humphrey,\\n512 U.S. at 486–87, in which the prisoner–plaintiff sought\\ndamages for wrongful conviction. Heck claimed that Indiana\\nprosecutors had destroyed exculpatory evidence and en-\\ngaged in an “unlawful, unreasonable, and arbitrary investi-\\ngation.” Id. at 479. The Court held that\\n in order to recover damages for [an] allegedly\\n unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,\\n or for other harm caused by actions whose un-\\n lawfulness would render a conviction or sen-\\n tence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that\\n the conviction or sentence has been reversed\\n on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\\n declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized\\n to make such determination, or called into\\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\\n of habeas corpus.\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 7\\n\\nId. at 486–87. The Court distinguished Wolff v. McDonnell,\\n418 U.S. 539 (1974), in which there was no “reason to be-\\nlieve[] that using the wrong procedures necessarily vitiated\\nthe denial of good-time credits.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 483. Con-\\nversely, a judgment in Heck’s favor would “necessarily\\nimply the invalidity of [Heck’s] conviction or sentence.” Id. at\\n487. When a judgment for the plaintiff would have that\\neffect, no § 1983 claim accrues until the plaintiff succeeds in\\ninvalidating the underlying conviction or sentence.\\n The Court extended Heck to the prison-discipline context\\nin Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). Balisok alleged that\\nthe presiding officer at his conduct hearing was biased and\\ndeprived him of the opportunity to present exculpatory\\nwitness testimony. Id. at 643. Some of Balisok’s good-time\\ncredits were revoked. He did not challenge the result of the\\nproceeding or the punishment he received. Instead, he\\nclaimed in a § 1983 suit that he was deprived of due process.\\nId. at 645. The Court held that judgment for Balisok would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of his disciplinary sentence.\\nId. at 648. The Court reasoned that denial of the opportunity\\nto present witnesses was “an obvious procedural defect, and\\nstate and federal courts have reinstated good-time credits\\n(absent a new hearing) when it is established.” Id. at 647.\\nThus, Heck’s favorable-termination rule applied. Id. at 648.\\nA. Strategic Waiver\\n Morgan argues that challenges to the conditions of a pris-\\noner’s confinement—as opposed to the duration of that\\nconfinement—do not implicate Heck, so a prisoner should be\\npermitted to challenge a disciplinary proceeding via § 1983 if\\nhe waives all challenges to duration-of-confinement sanc-\\n\\f8 No. 16-2384\\n\\ntions. Morgan’s is not a novel argument. We have rejected it\\nbefore and see no reason to change course.\\n When an inmate is found guilty of a disciplinary viola-\\ntion, prison officials can apply sanctions reducing the in-\\nmate’s privileges within the facility. They can also revoke\\ngood-time credits, a sanction that has the effect of lengthen-\\ning the inmate’s term of confinement. Morgan relies on\\nPeralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98, in which the Second Circuit\\nconsidered the mixed-sanctions scenario and chose to em-\\nbrace strategic waiver as a means of removing the Heck bar.\\nThe court held that a prisoner facing condition-of-\\nconfinement sanctions and duration-of-confinement sanc-\\ntions could challenge the former under § 1983 without\\ncomplying with Heck’s favorable-termination requirement.\\nId. at 104. All the prisoner must do is “abandon, not just now,\\nbut also in any future proceeding, any claims he may have\\nwith respect to the duration of his confinement that arise out\\nof the proceeding he is attacking.” Id.\\n We rejected Peralta in Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026.\\nThe approach Morgan urges us to adopt rests on a misun-\\nderstanding of Heck. The favorable-termination rule is more\\nthan a procedural hurdle that plaintiffs can skirt with artful\\ncomplaint drafting or opportunistic affidavits. Rather, it is\\ngrounded in substantive concerns about allowing conflicting\\njudgments. As we explained in Haywood, the Heck rule is “a\\nversion of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), under which\\nthe outstanding criminal judgment or disciplinary sanction,\\nas long as it stands, blocks any inconsistent civil judgment.”\\n842 F.3d at 1029. Neither Peralta nor Morgan can account for\\nthis aspect of Heck.\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 9\\n\\n Endorsing Morgan’s arguments would undercut another\\nfeature of the Court’s favorable-termination jurisprudence.\\nHeck held that “a § 1983 cause of action for damages at-\\ntributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does\\nnot accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invali-\\ndated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90 (emphasis added). Morgan’s\\nargument is incompatible with that holding. If a prisoner’s\\nchallenge to a disciplinary hearing implies the invalidity of\\nthe resulting sanctions, no § 1983 claim has accrued. And\\n“[i]f the claim has not accrued, it cannot matter what relief a\\nprisoner seeks.” Haywood, 842 F.3d at 1028. Selective waiver\\nsimply doesn’t alter the analysis.\\n Morgan concedes that Haywood controls his case and asks\\nus to overrule it. But we do not reverse our precedents\\nlightly; we need “compelling reasons” to do so. Russ v.\\nWatts, 414 F.3d 783, 788 (7th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court\\nhas not cast doubt on Haywood, and it does not represent a\\nminority approach among our sister circuits. See Glaser v.\\nWound Care Consultants, Inc., 570 F.3d 907, 915 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(discussing circumstances in which we reconsider our\\nprecedents). Moreover, we remain convinced that “Peralta is\\nincompatible with Heck and its successors.” Haywood,\\n842 F.3d at 1030. State prisoners cannot avoid the favorable-\\ntermination rule by engaging in strategic waiver. If judgment\\nfor a § 1983 plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity\\nof his punishment, the Heck rule applies and favorable\\ntermination of the underlying proceeding is a prerequisite to\\nrelief. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004).\\nB. Dotson and Skinner\\n Morgan also compares his case to Wilkinson v. Dotson,\\n544 U.S. 74 (2005), and Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011),\\n\\f10 No. 16-2384\\n\\nbut the analogy is inapt. In Dotson the Court dealt with two\\n§ 1983 suits challenging the retroactivity of certain state\\nparole-hearing procedures on due-process grounds. The\\nplaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction order-\\ning parole hearings under a different set of rules. Dotson,\\n544 U.S. at 76–77. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims\\nwere cognizable under § 1983 because success would mean\\n“new [parole] eligibility review” for one plaintiff and “a new\\nparole hearing” for the other, neither of which would “nec-\\nessarily spell immediate or speedier release” or imply the\\ninvalidity of their sentences. Id. at 81 (emphasis omitted). In\\nSkinner the Court allowed a Texas prisoner to seek postcon-\\nviction DNA testing using a § 1983 suit because “[s]uccess …\\ngains for the prisoner only access to the DNA evidence,\\nwhich may prove exculpatory, inculpatory, or inconclusive.”\\n562 U.S. at 525. Thus, judgment for the plaintiff wouldn’t\\nnecessarily imply unlawful confinement by the State.\\n It’s not clear that Morgan made this argument below. But\\nin the interest of completeness, we address it here. Morgan\\nmisses a key distinction between his case and Dotson and\\nSkinner—a distinction we’ve discussed before. See Burd v.\\nSessler, 702 F.3d 429, 432–34 (7th Cir. 2012). The plaintiffs in\\nDotson and Skinner sought purely prospective relief: parole\\nhearings under different rules in Dotson; DNA testing in\\nSkinner. As we explained in Burd, the Dotson and Skinner\\nplaintiffs sought entirely forward-looking relief: access to\\n“procedural pathways that, if successfully employed, might\\n[have led] to the overturning of the underlying conviction.”\\nBurd, 702 F.3d at 433 (emphasis added). Judgment for those\\nplaintiffs would not have implied the invalidity of their\\nconvictions or sentences.\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 11\\n\\n Morgan’s claim, in contrast, is entirely backward looking.\\nHe alleges a due-process violation at the hearing that gener-\\nated his disciplinary sanctions. A damages judgment for\\nMorgan would amount to a judicial determination that\\nprison officials infringed Morgan’s constitutional rights by\\nfailing to call a witness in his defense, rendering the pro-\\nceeding unfair. Such a judgment would straightforwardly\\nimply the invalidity of his punishment, triggering Heck’s\\nfavorable-termination rule. Balisok, 520 U.S. at 648; see also\\nLusz v. Scott, 126 F.3d 1018, 1022 (7th Cir. 1997) (applying the\\nHeck bar where the plaintiff argued “that he was denied the\\nopportunity to call requested witnesses in his favor”). We’ve\\nclarified before that “‘[i]mply’ is not synonymous with\\n‘invalidate.’” Hill v. Murphy, 785 F.3d 242, 248 (7th Cir. 2015).\\nJudgment in Morgan’s favor would allow him “to argue that\\nhe had been determined by a court to have been unjustly”\\npunished—an outcome that “Heck forbids.” Id.\\n Morgan argues that Illinois regulations make all the dif-\\nference. By rule, “[t]he Director, Deputy Director or Chief\\nAdministrative Officer shall remand the decision to the\\nAdjustment Committee for new proceedings if the proceed-\\nings are found to be defective due to[] … [i]mproper exclu-\\nsion of witnesses.” ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 20, § 504.90(a)(3). In\\nMorgan’s view this provision makes his case like Dotson and\\nSkinner, where success merely meant access to new proceed-\\nings. Morgan claims that a judgment in his favor would\\nbring “a new hearing that appropriately considers previous-\\nly excluded evidence.” The hearing could go either way—\\nlike the parole hearings in Dotson or the testing in Skinner—\\nso Heck poses no problem for Morgan’s suit.\\n\\f12 No. 16-2384\\n\\n We disagree. Heck is not inapplicable merely because\\nstate prison regulations call for replacement proceedings in\\ncertain situations. Heck prevents the entry of any judgment\\nthat would cast doubt on the validity of the plaintiff’s pun-\\nishment or conviction. Burd, 702 F.3d at 433. To repeat, in\\nDotson the plaintiffs sought entirely forward-looking relief in\\nthe form of new hearings under a different set of rules.\\nJudgment granting that relief wouldn’t impugn their sen-\\ntences. Morgan seeks money damages—a classic retrospec-\\ntive remedy. That Morgan might receive additional\\nadministrative proceedings as a collateral consequence of\\nreceiving a damages judgment does not render that hypo-\\nthetical judgment any more consistent with the validity of\\nhis disciplinary punishment.\\n It’s worth noting that Morgan could have challenged the\\nBoard’s ruling in other ways. Id. at 436 (holding that “Heck\\napplies where a § 1983 plaintiff could have sought collateral\\nrelief … but declined the opportunity”). Under Illinois law\\nthe writ of certiorari empowers circuit courts to review\\nadministrative determinations “when the act conferring\\npower on the agency does not expressly adopt the Adminis-\\ntrative Review Law and provides for no other form of re-\\nview.” Hanrahan v. Williams, 673 N.E.2d 251, 253 (Ill. 1996).\\nIllinois statutes governing prison discipline do not provide\\nfor judicial review, so “prison disciplinary proceedings are\\nreviewable in an action for certiorari.” Fillmore v. Taylor,\\n80 N.E.3d 835, 849 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). Alternatively, Morgan\\ncould have asked a state court to issue a writ of mandamus\\nordering Menard officials to conduct a new hearing. Dye v.\\nPierce, 868 N.E.2d 293, 296 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (“An allegation\\nof a due-process-rights violation … states a cause of action in\\nmandamus.”). And after exhausting state review, he could\\n\\fNo. 16-2384 13\\n\\nhave sought relief under the federal habeas corpus statute.\\nInstead he immediately sued for money damages under\\n§ 1983—and ran directly into Heck.\\n Although Morgan does not currently have a cognizable\\n§ 1983 claim, it is at least possible that he could convince a\\nstate court to provide the favorable termination required by\\nHeck. Illinois courts apply a six-month limitations period to\\ncertiorari actions, but a court might hear a late certiorari\\naction if no “public detriment or inconvenience would result\\nfrom [the] delay.” Alicea v. Snyder, 748 N.E.2d 285, 290 (Ill.\\nApp. Ct. 2001).\\n Heck-barred claims must be dismissed. Johnson v.\\nWinstead, 900 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. 2018). But given the\\npossibility of future state-court proceedings, Morgan’s claim\\nshould have been dismissed without prejudice. See Moore v.\\nBurge, 771 F.3d 444, 446 (7th Cir. 2014); Polzin v. Gage,\\n636 F.3d 834, 839 (7th Cir. 2011). We modify the judgment to\\nreflect a dismissal without prejudice. As modified, the\\njudgment is affirmed.\\n AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":664,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588108,"string":"4,588,108"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"JACKSON COUNTY BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mathew R. DUSABLON, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Jackson County Bank v. Mathew DuSablon"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-06"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2809"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2809\\nJACKSON COUNTY BANK,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nMATHEW R. DUSABLON,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-01346 — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 14, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir-\\ncuit Judges.\\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Jackson County Bank sued its former\\nemployee, Mathew R. DuSablon, in Indiana state court, as-\\nserting various state law claims, including theft of property\\nand breach of contract. Following his unsuccessful motion to\\ndismiss, DuSablon removed the case to federal court. The dis-\\ntrict court remanded the case to state court for want of juris-\\ndiction and untimely removal and further ordered DuSablon\\n\\f2 No. 18-2809\\n\\nto pay the costs and fees for the wrongful removal. DuSablon\\nnow appeals the remand order and the district court’s impo-\\nsition of sanctions. We dismiss the appeal of the district\\ncourt’s remand order and affirm its award of costs and fees.\\n I. Background\\n Jackson County Bank (“JCB”) is an Indiana state-chartered\\nbank. Although not a registered broker-dealer, JCB had a\\nthird-party agreement with INVEST Financial Corporation, a\\nregistered broker-dealer, to offer securities to JCB customers.\\n Mathew R. DuSablon, who resides in Indiana, began\\nworking for JCB in 2007. In July 2017, JCB assigned DuSablon\\nto assist the bank in identifying and establishing an invest-\\nment business with a new third-party broker-dealer. DuSa-\\nblon, however, failed to perform his job and abruptly re-\\nsigned on January 8, 2018. JCB thereafter learned that DuSa-\\nblon had transferred customers’ accounts from JCB’s former\\nthird-party broker-dealer, INVEST, into his own name and\\nhad started a business to compete with JCB.\\n On February 28, 2018, JCB filed suit in Indiana state court,\\nseeking a preliminary injunction and asserting state-law\\nclaims against DuSablon, including violation of the Indiana\\nUniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, breach of fidu-\\nciary duty, tortious interference, unfair competition, civil con-\\nversion, and computer trespass. DuSablon moved to dismiss,\\narguing with references to federal law that JCB is an unli-\\ncensed broker-dealer and therefore lacks standing to enforce\\nits rights in the information at issue; and that Financial Indus-\\ntry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) rules bar the suit.\\nJCB responded that it had standing and is not subject to\\nFINRA rules. The court denied the motion on April 20, 2018.\\n\\fNo. 18-2809 3\\n\\n Days later, on May 2, 2018, DuSablon removed this case to\\nthe United States District Court for the Southern District of\\nIndiana, asserting that the federal district court “has exclusive\\njurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and the Securities\\nand Exchange Act of 1934.” Acknowledging that JCB did not\\nplead a federal claim, DuSablon contended that JCB’s re-\\nsponse to his motion to dismiss in state court “raises a federal\\nquestion as all of [JCB’s] claims against [DuSablon] rest upon\\nthe legality of direct participation in the securities industry\\nwhich is determined and regulated by the [Securities] Act.”\\n On May 11, 2018, JCB moved to remand for lack of juris-\\ndiction, and also argued, among other things, that DuSablon\\nused the removal statute inappropriately to postpone prelim-\\ninary injunction proceedings in state court and “run the\\nclock” on his non-compete. The district court granted the mo-\\ntion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and that the re-\\nmoval was untimely. The district court accordingly remanded\\nthe case to state court and additionally ordered DuSablon to\\npay JCB costs and fees of $9,035.61 under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).\\n II. Discussion\\n DuSablon appeals the district court’s remand and sanc-\\ntions orders. JCB, for its part, requests additional costs and\\nfees under § 1447(c) for its defense of this appeal.\\n DuSablon challenges the district court’s order remanding\\nthis case to state court. But “[a]n order remanding a case to\\nthe State court from which it was removed is not reviewable\\non appeal or otherwise,” subject to exceptions not pertinent\\nhere. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Spencer,\\n763 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). We therefore dismiss\\nthis aspect of DuSablon’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See\\n\\f4 No. 18-2809\\n\\nAdkins v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 326 F.3d 828, 834 (7th Cir. 2003)\\n(“[T]he rule of nonreviewability … in § 1447(d) means that\\neven remands based on an erroneous belief in the lack of fed-\\neral subject matter jurisdiction cannot be reviewed….”).\\n DuSablon next challenges the district court’s award of\\ncosts and fees to JCB pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This we\\ncan review. See, e.g., Garbie v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 211 F.3d\\n407, 409–10 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that an appellate court has\\njurisdiction to review sanctions under § 1447(c)). Under\\n§ 1447(c), “‘[a]n order remanding a removed case to state\\ncourt ‘may require payment of just costs and any actual ex-\\npenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the re-\\nmoval.’” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134 (2005)\\n(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). A district court may award fees\\nunder § 1447(c) where “the removing party lacked an ‘objec-\\ntively reasonable basis’” for seeking removal. Wolf v. Kennelly,\\n574 F.3d 406, 411 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Martin, 546 U.S. at\\n141). Sanctions may be awarded when removal is clearly im-\\nproper, id., but not necessarily frivolous, Martin, 546 U.S. at\\n138–40 (further explaining the rationale for fee-shifting in ap-\\npropriate cases).\\n We review a district court’s decision to award sanctions\\nfor abuse of discretion. See Wolf, 574 F.3d at 410. And here, we\\nfind no abuse of discretion, as we agree that DuSablon lacked\\nan objectively reasonable basis to remove this case to federal\\ncourt. The impropriety of removal, as the district court ob-\\nserved, was “not a close question.” JCB did not plead any fed-\\neral claim nor is any federal question apparent from the face\\nof its complaint. See Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs, Inc., 205\\nF.3d 983, 986 (7th Cir. 2000). The complaint is based entirely\\non state law and any potential federal defense cannot form the\\n\\fNo. 18-2809 5\\n\\nbasis for removal. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,\\n392 (1987); Studer v. Katherine Shaw Bethea Hosp., 867 F.3d 721,\\n723 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n DuSablon nonetheless argues that JCB’s state law claims\\ninvolve significant questions of federal securities laws. But\\nDuSablon cannot manufacture a basis for removal by inject-\\ning federal issues into a case under these circumstances. See\\nPanther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC, 827 F.3d 586,\\n589 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding in a breach of contract action that\\nan allegation that a defendant violated federal statutes is in-\\nsufficient to create subject-matter jurisdiction). This is partic-\\nularly so because, as the district court observed, DuSablon\\ncited no cases supporting his position nor attempted to apply\\ncontrolling law, namely Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Da-\\nrue Eng’r & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314–15 (2005) (invoking federal\\njurisdiction over state law claim to quiet title to property\\nseized by federal government where the validity of the sei-\\nzure was “the only legal or factual issue[] in the case”).\\n Other considerations support the district court’s exercise\\nof discretion. The first is the court’s finding that “DuSablon’s\\nconduct in defending the motion to remand” suggested that\\n“removal was undertaken at least in part to delay a resolution\\nof the noncompete issues to his benefit and to allow for a sec-\\nond bite at the apple after losing his motion to dismiss in state\\ncourt.” We see no clear error in this finding. The second con-\\nsideration is the untimeliness of DuSablon’s removal. Despite\\nhis claimed ignorance of the supposed substantial federal\\nquestion until JCB responded to his motion to dismiss, DuSa-\\nblon’s motion itself raised many issues of federal law. The dis-\\ntrict court properly determined that DuSablon was or should\\n\\f6 No. 18-2809\\n\\nhave been aware of his asserted grounds for removal more\\nthan 30 days prior to his notice of removal.\\n Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion\\nin determining that DuSablon lacked an objectively reasona-\\nble basis to remove the case to federal court.\\n Finally, JCB requests an award of costs and fees incurred\\nin defending this appeal.1 “[L]itigants who receive an award\\nof fees in the district court under § 1447(c) automatically re-\\nceive reimbursement for the expense of defending that award\\non appeal.” MB Fin., N.A. v. Stevens, 678 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.\\n2012). JCB is therefore “entitled to an award of ‘legal fees for\\nthe cost of work reasonably performed in defense of the dis-\\ntrict court’s decision.’” PNC Bank, 763 F.3d at 655 (quoting\\nM.B. Fin., 678 F.3d at 500). JCB has fourteen days from the date\\nof this decision to submit a statement of fees. DuSablon will\\nhave fourteen days to respond.\\n III. Conclusion\\n We DISMISS the appeal of the district court’s remand or-\\nder and AFFIRM its award of costs and fees.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1In its brief, JCB also requests fees under Federal Rule of Appellate\\nProcedure 38. But JCB did not file a separate motion under Rule 38, so we\\ndeny its request. See Vexol, S.A. de C.V. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 882 F.3d 633,\\n638 (7th Cir. 2018) (denying request for sanctions where party did not sub-\\nmit a “‘separately filed motion’” for sanctions) (quoting FED. R. APP. P. 38).\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4365361/\", \"author_raw\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Cir cuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Cir cuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588108/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: JACKSON COUNTY BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mathew R. DUSABLON, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-06\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2809\nJACKSON COUNTY BANK,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nMATHEW R. DUSABLON,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\n No. 1:18-cv-01346 — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED JANUARY 14, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir-\ncuit Judges.\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Jackson County Bank sued its former\nemployee, Mathew R. DuSablon, in Indiana state court, as-\nserting various state law claims, including theft of property\nand breach of contract. Following his unsuccessful motion to\ndismiss, DuSablon removed the case to federal court. The dis-\ntrict court remanded the case to state court for want of juris-\ndiction and untimely removal and further ordered DuSablon\n\f2 No. 18-2809\n\nto pay the costs and fees for the wrongful removal. DuSablon\nnow appeals the remand order and the district court’s impo-\nsition of sanctions. We dismiss the appeal of the district\ncourt’s remand order and affirm its award of costs and fees.\n I. Background\n Jackson County Bank (“JCB”) is an Indiana state-chartered\nbank. Although not a registered broker-dealer, JCB had a\nthird-party agreement with INVEST Financial Corporation, a\nregistered broker-dealer, to offer securities to JCB customers.\n Mathew R. DuSablon, who resides in Indiana, began\nworking for JCB in 2007. In July 2017, JCB assigned DuSablon\nto assist the bank in identifying and establishing an invest-\nment business with a new third-party broker-dealer. DuSa-\nblon, however, failed to perform his job and abruptly re-\nsigned on January 8, 2018. JCB thereafter learned that DuSa-\nblon had transferred customers’ accounts from JCB’s former\nthird-party broker-dealer, INVEST, into his own name and\nhad started a business to compete with JCB.\n On February 28, 2018, JCB filed suit in Indiana state court,\nseeking a preliminary injunction and asserting state-law\nclaims against DuSablon, including violation of the Indiana\nUniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, breach of fidu-\nciary duty, tortious interference, unfair competition, civil con-\nversion, and computer trespass. DuSablon moved to dismiss,\narguing with references to federal law that JCB is an unli-\ncensed broker-dealer and therefore lacks standing to enforce\nits rights in the information at issue; and that Financial Indus-\ntry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) rules bar the suit.\nJCB responded that it had standing and is not subject to\nFINRA rules. The court denied the motion on April 20, 2018.\n\fNo. 18-2809 3\n\n Days later, on May 2, 2018, DuSablon removed this case to\nthe United States District Court for the Southern District of\nIndiana, asserting that the federal district court “has exclusive\njurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and the Securities\nand Exchange Act of 1934.” Acknowledging that JCB did not\nplead a federal claim, DuSablon contended that JCB’s re-\nsponse to his motion to dismiss in state court “raises a federal\nquestion as all of [JCB’s] claims against [DuSablon] rest upon\nthe legality of direct participation in the securities industry\nwhich is determined and regulated by the [Securities] Act.”\n On May 11, 2018, JCB moved to remand for lack of juris-\ndiction, and also argued, among other things, that DuSablon\nused the removal statute inappropriately to postpone prelim-\ninary injunction proceedings in state court and “run the\nclock” on his non-compete. The district court granted the mo-\ntion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and that the re-\nmoval was untimely. The district court accordingly remanded\nthe case to state court and additionally ordered DuSablon to\npay JCB costs and fees of $9,035.61 under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).\n II. Discussion\n DuSablon appeals the district court’s remand and sanc-\ntions orders. JCB, for its part, requests additional costs and\nfees under § 1447(c) for its defense of this appeal.\n DuSablon challenges the district court’s order remanding\nthis case to state court. But “[a]n order remanding a case to\nthe State court from which it was removed is not reviewable\non appeal or otherwise,” subject to exceptions not pertinent\nhere. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Spencer,\n763 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). We therefore dismiss\nthis aspect of DuSablon’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See\n\f4 No. 18-2809\n\nAdkins v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 326 F.3d 828, 834 (7th Cir. 2003)\n(“[T]he rule of nonreviewability … in § 1447(d) means that\neven remands based on an erroneous belief in the lack of fed-\neral subject matter jurisdiction cannot be reviewed….”).\n DuSablon next challenges the district court’s award of\ncosts and fees to JCB pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This we\ncan review. See, e.g., Garbie v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 211 F.3d\n407, 409–10 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that an appellate court has\njurisdiction to review sanctions under § 1447(c)). Under\n§ 1447(c), “‘[a]n order remanding a removed case to state\ncourt ‘may require payment of just costs and any actual ex-\npenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the re-\nmoval.’” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134 (2005)\n(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). A district court may award fees\nunder § 1447(c) where “the removing party lacked an ‘objec-\ntively reasonable basis’” for seeking removal. Wolf v. Kennelly,\n574 F.3d 406, 411 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Martin, 546 U.S. at\n141). Sanctions may be awarded when removal is clearly im-\nproper, id., but not necessarily frivolous, Martin, 546 U.S. at\n138–40 (further explaining the rationale for fee-shifting in ap-\npropriate cases).\n We review a district court’s decision to award sanctions\nfor abuse of discretion. See Wolf, 574 F.3d at 410. And here, we\nfind no abuse of discretion, as we agree that DuSablon lacked\nan objectively reasonable basis to remove this case to federal\ncourt. The impropriety of removal, as the district court ob-\nserved, was “not a close question.” JCB did not plead any fed-\neral claim nor is any federal question apparent from the face\nof its complaint. See Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs, Inc., 205\nF.3d 983, 986 (7th Cir. 2000). The complaint is based entirely\non state law and any potential federal defense cannot form the\n\fNo. 18-2809 5\n\nbasis for removal. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,\n392 (1987); Studer v. Katherine Shaw Bethea Hosp., 867 F.3d 721,\n723 (7th Cir. 2017).\n DuSablon nonetheless argues that JCB’s state law claims\ninvolve significant questions of federal securities laws. But\nDuSablon cannot manufacture a basis for removal by inject-\ning federal issues into a case under these circumstances. See\nPanther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC, 827 F.3d 586,\n589 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding in a breach of contract action that\nan allegation that a defendant violated federal statutes is in-\nsufficient to create subject-matter jurisdiction). This is partic-\nularly so because, as the district court observed, DuSablon\ncited no cases supporting his position nor attempted to apply\ncontrolling law, namely Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Da-\nrue Eng’r & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314–15 (2005) (invoking federal\njurisdiction over state law claim to quiet title to property\nseized by federal government where the validity of the sei-\nzure was “the only legal or factual issue[] in the case”).\n Other considerations support the district court’s exercise\nof discretion. The first is the court’s finding that “DuSablon’s\nconduct in defending the motion to remand” suggested that\n“removal was undertaken at least in part to delay a resolution\nof the noncompete issues to his benefit and to allow for a sec-\nond bite at the apple after losing his motion to dismiss in state\ncourt.” We see no clear error in this finding. The second con-\nsideration is the untimeliness of DuSablon’s removal. Despite\nhis claimed ignorance of the supposed substantial federal\nquestion until JCB responded to his motion to dismiss, DuSa-\nblon’s motion itself raised many issues of federal law. The dis-\ntrict court properly determined that DuSablon was or should\n\f6 No. 18-2809\n\nhave been aware of his asserted grounds for removal more\nthan 30 days prior to his notice of removal.\n Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion\nin determining that DuSablon lacked an objectively reasona-\nble basis to remove the case to federal court.\n Finally, JCB requests an award of costs and fees incurred\nin defending this appeal.1 “[L]itigants who receive an award\nof fees in the district court under § 1447(c) automatically re-\nceive reimbursement for the expense of defending that award\non appeal.” MB Fin., N.A. v. Stevens, 678 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.\n2012). JCB is therefore “entitled to an award of ‘legal fees for\nthe cost of work reasonably performed in defense of the dis-\ntrict court’s decision.’” PNC Bank, 763 F.3d at 655 (quoting\nM.B. Fin., 678 F.3d at 500). JCB has fourteen days from the date\nof this decision to submit a statement of fees. DuSablon will\nhave fourteen days to respond.\n III. Conclusion\n We DISMISS the appeal of the district court’s remand or-\nder and AFFIRM its award of costs and fees.\n\n\n\n\n 1In its brief, JCB also requests fees under Federal Rule of Appellate\nProcedure 38. But JCB did not file a separate motion under Rule 38, so we\ndeny its request. See Vexol, S.A. de C.V. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 882 F.3d 633,\n638 (7th Cir. 2018) (denying request for sanctions where party did not sub-\nmit a “‘separately filed motion’” for sanctions) (quoting FED. R. APP. P. 38).\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: JACKSON COUNTY BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mathew R. DUSABLON, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-06\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2809\\nJACKSON COUNTY BANK,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nMATHEW R. DUSABLON,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-01346 — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 14, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir-\\ncuit Judges.\\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Jackson County Bank sued its former\\nemployee, Mathew R. DuSablon, in Indiana state court, as-\\nserting various state law claims, including theft of property\\nand breach of contract. Following his unsuccessful motion to\\ndismiss, DuSablon removed the case to federal court. The dis-\\ntrict court remanded the case to state court for want of juris-\\ndiction and untimely removal and further ordered DuSablon\\n\\f2 No. 18-2809\\n\\nto pay the costs and fees for the wrongful removal. DuSablon\\nnow appeals the remand order and the district court’s impo-\\nsition of sanctions. We dismiss the appeal of the district\\ncourt’s remand order and affirm its award of costs and fees.\\n I. Background\\n Jackson County Bank (“JCB”) is an Indiana state-chartered\\nbank. Although not a registered broker-dealer, JCB had a\\nthird-party agreement with INVEST Financial Corporation, a\\nregistered broker-dealer, to offer securities to JCB customers.\\n Mathew R. DuSablon, who resides in Indiana, began\\nworking for JCB in 2007. In July 2017, JCB assigned DuSablon\\nto assist the bank in identifying and establishing an invest-\\nment business with a new third-party broker-dealer. DuSa-\\nblon, however, failed to perform his job and abruptly re-\\nsigned on January 8, 2018. JCB thereafter learned that DuSa-\\nblon had transferred customers’ accounts from JCB’s former\\nthird-party broker-dealer, INVEST, into his own name and\\nhad started a business to compete with JCB.\\n On February 28, 2018, JCB filed suit in Indiana state court,\\nseeking a preliminary injunction and asserting state-law\\nclaims against DuSablon, including violation of the Indiana\\nUniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, breach of fidu-\\nciary duty, tortious interference, unfair competition, civil con-\\nversion, and computer trespass. DuSablon moved to dismiss,\\narguing with references to federal law that JCB is an unli-\\ncensed broker-dealer and therefore lacks standing to enforce\\nits rights in the information at issue; and that Financial Indus-\\ntry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) rules bar the suit.\\nJCB responded that it had standing and is not subject to\\nFINRA rules. The court denied the motion on April 20, 2018.\\n\\fNo. 18-2809 3\\n\\n Days later, on May 2, 2018, DuSablon removed this case to\\nthe United States District Court for the Southern District of\\nIndiana, asserting that the federal district court “has exclusive\\njurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and the Securities\\nand Exchange Act of 1934.” Acknowledging that JCB did not\\nplead a federal claim, DuSablon contended that JCB’s re-\\nsponse to his motion to dismiss in state court “raises a federal\\nquestion as all of [JCB’s] claims against [DuSablon] rest upon\\nthe legality of direct participation in the securities industry\\nwhich is determined and regulated by the [Securities] Act.”\\n On May 11, 2018, JCB moved to remand for lack of juris-\\ndiction, and also argued, among other things, that DuSablon\\nused the removal statute inappropriately to postpone prelim-\\ninary injunction proceedings in state court and “run the\\nclock” on his non-compete. The district court granted the mo-\\ntion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and that the re-\\nmoval was untimely. The district court accordingly remanded\\nthe case to state court and additionally ordered DuSablon to\\npay JCB costs and fees of $9,035.61 under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).\\n II. Discussion\\n DuSablon appeals the district court’s remand and sanc-\\ntions orders. JCB, for its part, requests additional costs and\\nfees under § 1447(c) for its defense of this appeal.\\n DuSablon challenges the district court’s order remanding\\nthis case to state court. But “[a]n order remanding a case to\\nthe State court from which it was removed is not reviewable\\non appeal or otherwise,” subject to exceptions not pertinent\\nhere. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Spencer,\\n763 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). We therefore dismiss\\nthis aspect of DuSablon’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See\\n\\f4 No. 18-2809\\n\\nAdkins v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 326 F.3d 828, 834 (7th Cir. 2003)\\n(“[T]he rule of nonreviewability … in § 1447(d) means that\\neven remands based on an erroneous belief in the lack of fed-\\neral subject matter jurisdiction cannot be reviewed….”).\\n DuSablon next challenges the district court’s award of\\ncosts and fees to JCB pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This we\\ncan review. See, e.g., Garbie v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 211 F.3d\\n407, 409–10 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that an appellate court has\\njurisdiction to review sanctions under § 1447(c)). Under\\n§ 1447(c), “‘[a]n order remanding a removed case to state\\ncourt ‘may require payment of just costs and any actual ex-\\npenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the re-\\nmoval.’” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134 (2005)\\n(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). A district court may award fees\\nunder § 1447(c) where “the removing party lacked an ‘objec-\\ntively reasonable basis’” for seeking removal. Wolf v. Kennelly,\\n574 F.3d 406, 411 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Martin, 546 U.S. at\\n141). Sanctions may be awarded when removal is clearly im-\\nproper, id., but not necessarily frivolous, Martin, 546 U.S. at\\n138–40 (further explaining the rationale for fee-shifting in ap-\\npropriate cases).\\n We review a district court’s decision to award sanctions\\nfor abuse of discretion. See Wolf, 574 F.3d at 410. And here, we\\nfind no abuse of discretion, as we agree that DuSablon lacked\\nan objectively reasonable basis to remove this case to federal\\ncourt. The impropriety of removal, as the district court ob-\\nserved, was “not a close question.” JCB did not plead any fed-\\neral claim nor is any federal question apparent from the face\\nof its complaint. See Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs, Inc., 205\\nF.3d 983, 986 (7th Cir. 2000). The complaint is based entirely\\non state law and any potential federal defense cannot form the\\n\\fNo. 18-2809 5\\n\\nbasis for removal. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,\\n392 (1987); Studer v. Katherine Shaw Bethea Hosp., 867 F.3d 721,\\n723 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n DuSablon nonetheless argues that JCB’s state law claims\\ninvolve significant questions of federal securities laws. But\\nDuSablon cannot manufacture a basis for removal by inject-\\ning federal issues into a case under these circumstances. See\\nPanther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC, 827 F.3d 586,\\n589 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding in a breach of contract action that\\nan allegation that a defendant violated federal statutes is in-\\nsufficient to create subject-matter jurisdiction). This is partic-\\nularly so because, as the district court observed, DuSablon\\ncited no cases supporting his position nor attempted to apply\\ncontrolling law, namely Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Da-\\nrue Eng’r & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314–15 (2005) (invoking federal\\njurisdiction over state law claim to quiet title to property\\nseized by federal government where the validity of the sei-\\nzure was “the only legal or factual issue[] in the case”).\\n Other considerations support the district court’s exercise\\nof discretion. The first is the court’s finding that “DuSablon’s\\nconduct in defending the motion to remand” suggested that\\n“removal was undertaken at least in part to delay a resolution\\nof the noncompete issues to his benefit and to allow for a sec-\\nond bite at the apple after losing his motion to dismiss in state\\ncourt.” We see no clear error in this finding. The second con-\\nsideration is the untimeliness of DuSablon’s removal. Despite\\nhis claimed ignorance of the supposed substantial federal\\nquestion until JCB responded to his motion to dismiss, DuSa-\\nblon’s motion itself raised many issues of federal law. The dis-\\ntrict court properly determined that DuSablon was or should\\n\\f6 No. 18-2809\\n\\nhave been aware of his asserted grounds for removal more\\nthan 30 days prior to his notice of removal.\\n Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion\\nin determining that DuSablon lacked an objectively reasona-\\nble basis to remove the case to federal court.\\n Finally, JCB requests an award of costs and fees incurred\\nin defending this appeal.1 “[L]itigants who receive an award\\nof fees in the district court under § 1447(c) automatically re-\\nceive reimbursement for the expense of defending that award\\non appeal.” MB Fin., N.A. v. Stevens, 678 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.\\n2012). JCB is therefore “entitled to an award of ‘legal fees for\\nthe cost of work reasonably performed in defense of the dis-\\ntrict court’s decision.’” PNC Bank, 763 F.3d at 655 (quoting\\nM.B. Fin., 678 F.3d at 500). JCB has fourteen days from the date\\nof this decision to submit a statement of fees. DuSablon will\\nhave fourteen days to respond.\\n III. Conclusion\\n We DISMISS the appeal of the district court’s remand or-\\nder and AFFIRM its award of costs and fees.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1In its brief, JCB also requests fees under Federal Rule of Appellate\\nProcedure 38. But JCB did not file a separate motion under Rule 38, so we\\ndeny its request. See Vexol, S.A. de C.V. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 882 F.3d 633,\\n638 (7th Cir. 2018) (denying request for sanctions where party did not sub-\\nmit a “‘separately filed motion’” for sanctions) (quoting FED. R. APP. P. 38).\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":665,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588130,"string":"4,588,130"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Jackson County Bank v. Mathew DuSablon"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-06"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2809"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2809\\nJACKSON COUNTY BANK,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nMATHEW R. DUSABLON,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-01346 — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 14, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir-\\ncuit Judges.\\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Jackson County Bank sued its former\\nemployee, Mathew R. DuSablon, in Indiana state court, as-\\nserting various state law claims, including theft of property\\nand breach of contract. Following his unsuccessful motion to\\ndismiss, DuSablon removed the case to federal court. The dis-\\ntrict court remanded the case to state court for want of juris-\\ndiction and untimely removal and further ordered DuSablon\\n\\f2 No. 18-2809\\n\\nto pay the costs and fees for the wrongful removal. DuSablon\\nnow appeals the remand order and the district court’s impo-\\nsition of sanctions. We dismiss the appeal of the district\\ncourt’s remand order and affirm its award of costs and fees.\\n I. Background\\n Jackson County Bank (“JCB”) is an Indiana state-chartered\\nbank. Although not a registered broker-dealer, JCB had a\\nthird-party agreement with INVEST Financial Corporation, a\\nregistered broker-dealer, to offer securities to JCB customers.\\n Mathew R. DuSablon, who resides in Indiana, began\\nworking for JCB in 2007. In July 2017, JCB assigned DuSablon\\nto assist the bank in identifying and establishing an invest-\\nment business with a new third-party broker-dealer. DuSa-\\nblon, however, failed to perform his job and abruptly re-\\nsigned on January 8, 2018. JCB thereafter learned that DuSa-\\nblon had transferred customers’ accounts from JCB’s former\\nthird-party broker-dealer, INVEST, into his own name and\\nhad started a business to compete with JCB.\\n On February 28, 2018, JCB filed suit in Indiana state court,\\nseeking a preliminary injunction and asserting state-law\\nclaims against DuSablon, including violation of the Indiana\\nUniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, breach of fidu-\\nciary duty, tortious interference, unfair competition, civil con-\\nversion, and computer trespass. DuSablon moved to dismiss,\\narguing with references to federal law that JCB is an unli-\\ncensed broker-dealer and therefore lacks standing to enforce\\nits rights in the information at issue; and that Financial Indus-\\ntry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) rules bar the suit.\\nJCB responded that it had standing and is not subject to\\nFINRA rules. The court denied the motion on April 20, 2018.\\n\\fNo. 18-2809 3\\n\\n Days later, on May 2, 2018, DuSablon removed this case to\\nthe United States District Court for the Southern District of\\nIndiana, asserting that the federal district court “has exclusive\\njurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and the Securities\\nand Exchange Act of 1934.” Acknowledging that JCB did not\\nplead a federal claim, DuSablon contended that JCB’s re-\\nsponse to his motion to dismiss in state court “raises a federal\\nquestion as all of [JCB’s] claims against [DuSablon] rest upon\\nthe legality of direct participation in the securities industry\\nwhich is determined and regulated by the [Securities] Act.”\\n On May 11, 2018, JCB moved to remand for lack of juris-\\ndiction, and also argued, among other things, that DuSablon\\nused the removal statute inappropriately to postpone prelim-\\ninary injunction proceedings in state court and “run the\\nclock” on his non-compete. The district court granted the mo-\\ntion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and that the re-\\nmoval was untimely. The district court accordingly remanded\\nthe case to state court and additionally ordered DuSablon to\\npay JCB costs and fees of $9,035.61 under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).\\n II. Discussion\\n DuSablon appeals the district court’s remand and sanc-\\ntions orders. JCB, for its part, requests additional costs and\\nfees under § 1447(c) for its defense of this appeal.\\n DuSablon challenges the district court’s order remanding\\nthis case to state court. But “[a]n order remanding a case to\\nthe State court from which it was removed is not reviewable\\non appeal or otherwise,” subject to exceptions not pertinent\\nhere. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Spencer,\\n763 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). We therefore dismiss\\nthis aspect of DuSablon’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See\\n\\f4 No. 18-2809\\n\\nAdkins v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 326 F.3d 828, 834 (7th Cir. 2003)\\n(“[T]he rule of nonreviewability … in § 1447(d) means that\\neven remands based on an erroneous belief in the lack of fed-\\neral subject matter jurisdiction cannot be reviewed….”).\\n DuSablon next challenges the district court’s award of\\ncosts and fees to JCB pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This we\\ncan review. See, e.g., Garbie v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 211 F.3d\\n407, 409–10 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that an appellate court has\\njurisdiction to review sanctions under § 1447(c)). Under\\n§ 1447(c), “‘[a]n order remanding a removed case to state\\ncourt ‘may require payment of just costs and any actual ex-\\npenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the re-\\nmoval.’” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134 (2005)\\n(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). A district court may award fees\\nunder § 1447(c) where “the removing party lacked an ‘objec-\\ntively reasonable basis’” for seeking removal. Wolf v. Kennelly,\\n574 F.3d 406, 411 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Martin, 546 U.S. at\\n141). Sanctions may be awarded when removal is clearly im-\\nproper, id., but not necessarily frivolous, Martin, 546 U.S. at\\n138–40 (further explaining the rationale for fee-shifting in ap-\\npropriate cases).\\n We review a district court’s decision to award sanctions\\nfor abuse of discretion. See Wolf, 574 F.3d at 410. And here, we\\nfind no abuse of discretion, as we agree that DuSablon lacked\\nan objectively reasonable basis to remove this case to federal\\ncourt. The impropriety of removal, as the district court ob-\\nserved, was “not a close question.” JCB did not plead any fed-\\neral claim nor is any federal question apparent from the face\\nof its complaint. See Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs, Inc., 205\\nF.3d 983, 986 (7th Cir. 2000). The complaint is based entirely\\non state law and any potential federal defense cannot form the\\n\\fNo. 18-2809 5\\n\\nbasis for removal. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,\\n392 (1987); Studer v. Katherine Shaw Bethea Hosp., 867 F.3d 721,\\n723 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n DuSablon nonetheless argues that JCB’s state law claims\\ninvolve significant questions of federal securities laws. But\\nDuSablon cannot manufacture a basis for removal by inject-\\ning federal issues into a case under these circumstances. See\\nPanther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC, 827 F.3d 586,\\n589 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding in a breach of contract action that\\nan allegation that a defendant violated federal statutes is in-\\nsufficient to create subject-matter jurisdiction). This is partic-\\nularly so because, as the district court observed, DuSablon\\ncited no cases supporting his position nor attempted to apply\\ncontrolling law, namely Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Da-\\nrue Eng’r & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314–15 (2005) (invoking federal\\njurisdiction over state law claim to quiet title to property\\nseized by federal government where the validity of the sei-\\nzure was “the only legal or factual issue[] in the case”).\\n Other considerations support the district court’s exercise\\nof discretion. The first is the court’s finding that “DuSablon’s\\nconduct in defending the motion to remand” suggested that\\n“removal was undertaken at least in part to delay a resolution\\nof the noncompete issues to his benefit and to allow for a sec-\\nond bite at the apple after losing his motion to dismiss in state\\ncourt.” We see no clear error in this finding. The second con-\\nsideration is the untimeliness of DuSablon’s removal. Despite\\nhis claimed ignorance of the supposed substantial federal\\nquestion until JCB responded to his motion to dismiss, DuSa-\\nblon’s motion itself raised many issues of federal law. The dis-\\ntrict court properly determined that DuSablon was or should\\n\\f6 No. 18-2809\\n\\nhave been aware of his asserted grounds for removal more\\nthan 30 days prior to his notice of removal.\\n Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion\\nin determining that DuSablon lacked an objectively reasona-\\nble basis to remove the case to federal court.\\n Finally, JCB requests an award of costs and fees incurred\\nin defending this appeal.1 “[L]itigants who receive an award\\nof fees in the district court under § 1447(c) automatically re-\\nceive reimbursement for the expense of defending that award\\non appeal.” MB Fin., N.A. v. Stevens, 678 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.\\n2012). JCB is therefore “entitled to an award of ‘legal fees for\\nthe cost of work reasonably performed in defense of the dis-\\ntrict court’s decision.’” PNC Bank, 763 F.3d at 655 (quoting\\nM.B. Fin., 678 F.3d at 500). JCB has fourteen days from the date\\nof this decision to submit a statement of fees. DuSablon will\\nhave fourteen days to respond.\\n III. Conclusion\\n We DISMISS the appeal of the district court’s remand or-\\nder and AFFIRM its award of costs and fees.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1In its brief, JCB also requests fees under Federal Rule of Appellate\\nProcedure 38. But JCB did not file a separate motion under Rule 38, so we\\ndeny its request. See Vexol, S.A. de C.V. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 882 F.3d 633,\\n638 (7th Cir. 2018) (denying request for sanctions where party did not sub-\\nmit a “‘separately filed motion’” for sanctions) (quoting FED. R. APP. P. 38).\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4365383/\", \"author_raw\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Cir cuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Cir cuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588130/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Jackson County Bank v. Mathew DuSablon\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-06\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2809\nJACKSON COUNTY BANK,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nMATHEW R. DUSABLON,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\n No. 1:18-cv-01346 — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED JANUARY 14, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir-\ncuit Judges.\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Jackson County Bank sued its former\nemployee, Mathew R. DuSablon, in Indiana state court, as-\nserting various state law claims, including theft of property\nand breach of contract. Following his unsuccessful motion to\ndismiss, DuSablon removed the case to federal court. The dis-\ntrict court remanded the case to state court for want of juris-\ndiction and untimely removal and further ordered DuSablon\n\f2 No. 18-2809\n\nto pay the costs and fees for the wrongful removal. DuSablon\nnow appeals the remand order and the district court’s impo-\nsition of sanctions. We dismiss the appeal of the district\ncourt’s remand order and affirm its award of costs and fees.\n I. Background\n Jackson County Bank (“JCB”) is an Indiana state-chartered\nbank. Although not a registered broker-dealer, JCB had a\nthird-party agreement with INVEST Financial Corporation, a\nregistered broker-dealer, to offer securities to JCB customers.\n Mathew R. DuSablon, who resides in Indiana, began\nworking for JCB in 2007. In July 2017, JCB assigned DuSablon\nto assist the bank in identifying and establishing an invest-\nment business with a new third-party broker-dealer. DuSa-\nblon, however, failed to perform his job and abruptly re-\nsigned on January 8, 2018. JCB thereafter learned that DuSa-\nblon had transferred customers’ accounts from JCB’s former\nthird-party broker-dealer, INVEST, into his own name and\nhad started a business to compete with JCB.\n On February 28, 2018, JCB filed suit in Indiana state court,\nseeking a preliminary injunction and asserting state-law\nclaims against DuSablon, including violation of the Indiana\nUniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, breach of fidu-\nciary duty, tortious interference, unfair competition, civil con-\nversion, and computer trespass. DuSablon moved to dismiss,\narguing with references to federal law that JCB is an unli-\ncensed broker-dealer and therefore lacks standing to enforce\nits rights in the information at issue; and that Financial Indus-\ntry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) rules bar the suit.\nJCB responded that it had standing and is not subject to\nFINRA rules. The court denied the motion on April 20, 2018.\n\fNo. 18-2809 3\n\n Days later, on May 2, 2018, DuSablon removed this case to\nthe United States District Court for the Southern District of\nIndiana, asserting that the federal district court “has exclusive\njurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and the Securities\nand Exchange Act of 1934.” Acknowledging that JCB did not\nplead a federal claim, DuSablon contended that JCB’s re-\nsponse to his motion to dismiss in state court “raises a federal\nquestion as all of [JCB’s] claims against [DuSablon] rest upon\nthe legality of direct participation in the securities industry\nwhich is determined and regulated by the [Securities] Act.”\n On May 11, 2018, JCB moved to remand for lack of juris-\ndiction, and also argued, among other things, that DuSablon\nused the removal statute inappropriately to postpone prelim-\ninary injunction proceedings in state court and “run the\nclock” on his non-compete. The district court granted the mo-\ntion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and that the re-\nmoval was untimely. The district court accordingly remanded\nthe case to state court and additionally ordered DuSablon to\npay JCB costs and fees of $9,035.61 under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).\n II. Discussion\n DuSablon appeals the district court’s remand and sanc-\ntions orders. JCB, for its part, requests additional costs and\nfees under § 1447(c) for its defense of this appeal.\n DuSablon challenges the district court’s order remanding\nthis case to state court. But “[a]n order remanding a case to\nthe State court from which it was removed is not reviewable\non appeal or otherwise,” subject to exceptions not pertinent\nhere. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Spencer,\n763 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). We therefore dismiss\nthis aspect of DuSablon’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See\n\f4 No. 18-2809\n\nAdkins v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 326 F.3d 828, 834 (7th Cir. 2003)\n(“[T]he rule of nonreviewability … in § 1447(d) means that\neven remands based on an erroneous belief in the lack of fed-\neral subject matter jurisdiction cannot be reviewed….”).\n DuSablon next challenges the district court’s award of\ncosts and fees to JCB pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This we\ncan review. See, e.g., Garbie v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 211 F.3d\n407, 409–10 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that an appellate court has\njurisdiction to review sanctions under § 1447(c)). Under\n§ 1447(c), “‘[a]n order remanding a removed case to state\ncourt ‘may require payment of just costs and any actual ex-\npenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the re-\nmoval.’” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134 (2005)\n(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). A district court may award fees\nunder § 1447(c) where “the removing party lacked an ‘objec-\ntively reasonable basis’” for seeking removal. Wolf v. Kennelly,\n574 F.3d 406, 411 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Martin, 546 U.S. at\n141). Sanctions may be awarded when removal is clearly im-\nproper, id., but not necessarily frivolous, Martin, 546 U.S. at\n138–40 (further explaining the rationale for fee-shifting in ap-\npropriate cases).\n We review a district court’s decision to award sanctions\nfor abuse of discretion. See Wolf, 574 F.3d at 410. And here, we\nfind no abuse of discretion, as we agree that DuSablon lacked\nan objectively reasonable basis to remove this case to federal\ncourt. The impropriety of removal, as the district court ob-\nserved, was “not a close question.” JCB did not plead any fed-\neral claim nor is any federal question apparent from the face\nof its complaint. See Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs, Inc., 205\nF.3d 983, 986 (7th Cir. 2000). The complaint is based entirely\non state law and any potential federal defense cannot form the\n\fNo. 18-2809 5\n\nbasis for removal. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,\n392 (1987); Studer v. Katherine Shaw Bethea Hosp., 867 F.3d 721,\n723 (7th Cir. 2017).\n DuSablon nonetheless argues that JCB’s state law claims\ninvolve significant questions of federal securities laws. But\nDuSablon cannot manufacture a basis for removal by inject-\ning federal issues into a case under these circumstances. See\nPanther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC, 827 F.3d 586,\n589 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding in a breach of contract action that\nan allegation that a defendant violated federal statutes is in-\nsufficient to create subject-matter jurisdiction). This is partic-\nularly so because, as the district court observed, DuSablon\ncited no cases supporting his position nor attempted to apply\ncontrolling law, namely Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Da-\nrue Eng’r & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314–15 (2005) (invoking federal\njurisdiction over state law claim to quiet title to property\nseized by federal government where the validity of the sei-\nzure was “the only legal or factual issue[] in the case”).\n Other considerations support the district court’s exercise\nof discretion. The first is the court’s finding that “DuSablon’s\nconduct in defending the motion to remand” suggested that\n“removal was undertaken at least in part to delay a resolution\nof the noncompete issues to his benefit and to allow for a sec-\nond bite at the apple after losing his motion to dismiss in state\ncourt.” We see no clear error in this finding. The second con-\nsideration is the untimeliness of DuSablon’s removal. Despite\nhis claimed ignorance of the supposed substantial federal\nquestion until JCB responded to his motion to dismiss, DuSa-\nblon’s motion itself raised many issues of federal law. The dis-\ntrict court properly determined that DuSablon was or should\n\f6 No. 18-2809\n\nhave been aware of his asserted grounds for removal more\nthan 30 days prior to his notice of removal.\n Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion\nin determining that DuSablon lacked an objectively reasona-\nble basis to remove the case to federal court.\n Finally, JCB requests an award of costs and fees incurred\nin defending this appeal.1 “[L]itigants who receive an award\nof fees in the district court under § 1447(c) automatically re-\nceive reimbursement for the expense of defending that award\non appeal.” MB Fin., N.A. v. Stevens, 678 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.\n2012). JCB is therefore “entitled to an award of ‘legal fees for\nthe cost of work reasonably performed in defense of the dis-\ntrict court’s decision.’” PNC Bank, 763 F.3d at 655 (quoting\nM.B. Fin., 678 F.3d at 500). JCB has fourteen days from the date\nof this decision to submit a statement of fees. DuSablon will\nhave fourteen days to respond.\n III. Conclusion\n We DISMISS the appeal of the district court’s remand or-\nder and AFFIRM its award of costs and fees.\n\n\n\n\n 1In its brief, JCB also requests fees under Federal Rule of Appellate\nProcedure 38. But JCB did not file a separate motion under Rule 38, so we\ndeny its request. See Vexol, S.A. de C.V. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 882 F.3d 633,\n638 (7th Cir. 2018) (denying request for sanctions where party did not sub-\nmit a “‘separately filed motion’” for sanctions) (quoting FED. R. APP. P. 38).\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Jackson County Bank v. Mathew DuSablon\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-06\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2809\\nJACKSON COUNTY BANK,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nMATHEW R. DUSABLON,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-01346 — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 14, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir-\\ncuit Judges.\\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Jackson County Bank sued its former\\nemployee, Mathew R. DuSablon, in Indiana state court, as-\\nserting various state law claims, including theft of property\\nand breach of contract. Following his unsuccessful motion to\\ndismiss, DuSablon removed the case to federal court. The dis-\\ntrict court remanded the case to state court for want of juris-\\ndiction and untimely removal and further ordered DuSablon\\n\\f2 No. 18-2809\\n\\nto pay the costs and fees for the wrongful removal. DuSablon\\nnow appeals the remand order and the district court’s impo-\\nsition of sanctions. We dismiss the appeal of the district\\ncourt’s remand order and affirm its award of costs and fees.\\n I. Background\\n Jackson County Bank (“JCB”) is an Indiana state-chartered\\nbank. Although not a registered broker-dealer, JCB had a\\nthird-party agreement with INVEST Financial Corporation, a\\nregistered broker-dealer, to offer securities to JCB customers.\\n Mathew R. DuSablon, who resides in Indiana, began\\nworking for JCB in 2007. In July 2017, JCB assigned DuSablon\\nto assist the bank in identifying and establishing an invest-\\nment business with a new third-party broker-dealer. DuSa-\\nblon, however, failed to perform his job and abruptly re-\\nsigned on January 8, 2018. JCB thereafter learned that DuSa-\\nblon had transferred customers’ accounts from JCB’s former\\nthird-party broker-dealer, INVEST, into his own name and\\nhad started a business to compete with JCB.\\n On February 28, 2018, JCB filed suit in Indiana state court,\\nseeking a preliminary injunction and asserting state-law\\nclaims against DuSablon, including violation of the Indiana\\nUniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, breach of fidu-\\nciary duty, tortious interference, unfair competition, civil con-\\nversion, and computer trespass. DuSablon moved to dismiss,\\narguing with references to federal law that JCB is an unli-\\ncensed broker-dealer and therefore lacks standing to enforce\\nits rights in the information at issue; and that Financial Indus-\\ntry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) rules bar the suit.\\nJCB responded that it had standing and is not subject to\\nFINRA rules. The court denied the motion on April 20, 2018.\\n\\fNo. 18-2809 3\\n\\n Days later, on May 2, 2018, DuSablon removed this case to\\nthe United States District Court for the Southern District of\\nIndiana, asserting that the federal district court “has exclusive\\njurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and the Securities\\nand Exchange Act of 1934.” Acknowledging that JCB did not\\nplead a federal claim, DuSablon contended that JCB’s re-\\nsponse to his motion to dismiss in state court “raises a federal\\nquestion as all of [JCB’s] claims against [DuSablon] rest upon\\nthe legality of direct participation in the securities industry\\nwhich is determined and regulated by the [Securities] Act.”\\n On May 11, 2018, JCB moved to remand for lack of juris-\\ndiction, and also argued, among other things, that DuSablon\\nused the removal statute inappropriately to postpone prelim-\\ninary injunction proceedings in state court and “run the\\nclock” on his non-compete. The district court granted the mo-\\ntion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and that the re-\\nmoval was untimely. The district court accordingly remanded\\nthe case to state court and additionally ordered DuSablon to\\npay JCB costs and fees of $9,035.61 under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).\\n II. Discussion\\n DuSablon appeals the district court’s remand and sanc-\\ntions orders. JCB, for its part, requests additional costs and\\nfees under § 1447(c) for its defense of this appeal.\\n DuSablon challenges the district court’s order remanding\\nthis case to state court. But “[a]n order remanding a case to\\nthe State court from which it was removed is not reviewable\\non appeal or otherwise,” subject to exceptions not pertinent\\nhere. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Spencer,\\n763 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). We therefore dismiss\\nthis aspect of DuSablon’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See\\n\\f4 No. 18-2809\\n\\nAdkins v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 326 F.3d 828, 834 (7th Cir. 2003)\\n(“[T]he rule of nonreviewability … in § 1447(d) means that\\neven remands based on an erroneous belief in the lack of fed-\\neral subject matter jurisdiction cannot be reviewed….”).\\n DuSablon next challenges the district court’s award of\\ncosts and fees to JCB pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This we\\ncan review. See, e.g., Garbie v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 211 F.3d\\n407, 409–10 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that an appellate court has\\njurisdiction to review sanctions under § 1447(c)). Under\\n§ 1447(c), “‘[a]n order remanding a removed case to state\\ncourt ‘may require payment of just costs and any actual ex-\\npenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the re-\\nmoval.’” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134 (2005)\\n(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). A district court may award fees\\nunder § 1447(c) where “the removing party lacked an ‘objec-\\ntively reasonable basis’” for seeking removal. Wolf v. Kennelly,\\n574 F.3d 406, 411 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Martin, 546 U.S. at\\n141). Sanctions may be awarded when removal is clearly im-\\nproper, id., but not necessarily frivolous, Martin, 546 U.S. at\\n138–40 (further explaining the rationale for fee-shifting in ap-\\npropriate cases).\\n We review a district court’s decision to award sanctions\\nfor abuse of discretion. See Wolf, 574 F.3d at 410. And here, we\\nfind no abuse of discretion, as we agree that DuSablon lacked\\nan objectively reasonable basis to remove this case to federal\\ncourt. The impropriety of removal, as the district court ob-\\nserved, was “not a close question.” JCB did not plead any fed-\\neral claim nor is any federal question apparent from the face\\nof its complaint. See Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs, Inc., 205\\nF.3d 983, 986 (7th Cir. 2000). The complaint is based entirely\\non state law and any potential federal defense cannot form the\\n\\fNo. 18-2809 5\\n\\nbasis for removal. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,\\n392 (1987); Studer v. Katherine Shaw Bethea Hosp., 867 F.3d 721,\\n723 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n DuSablon nonetheless argues that JCB’s state law claims\\ninvolve significant questions of federal securities laws. But\\nDuSablon cannot manufacture a basis for removal by inject-\\ning federal issues into a case under these circumstances. See\\nPanther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC, 827 F.3d 586,\\n589 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding in a breach of contract action that\\nan allegation that a defendant violated federal statutes is in-\\nsufficient to create subject-matter jurisdiction). This is partic-\\nularly so because, as the district court observed, DuSablon\\ncited no cases supporting his position nor attempted to apply\\ncontrolling law, namely Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Da-\\nrue Eng’r & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314–15 (2005) (invoking federal\\njurisdiction over state law claim to quiet title to property\\nseized by federal government where the validity of the sei-\\nzure was “the only legal or factual issue[] in the case”).\\n Other considerations support the district court’s exercise\\nof discretion. The first is the court’s finding that “DuSablon’s\\nconduct in defending the motion to remand” suggested that\\n“removal was undertaken at least in part to delay a resolution\\nof the noncompete issues to his benefit and to allow for a sec-\\nond bite at the apple after losing his motion to dismiss in state\\ncourt.” We see no clear error in this finding. The second con-\\nsideration is the untimeliness of DuSablon’s removal. Despite\\nhis claimed ignorance of the supposed substantial federal\\nquestion until JCB responded to his motion to dismiss, DuSa-\\nblon’s motion itself raised many issues of federal law. The dis-\\ntrict court properly determined that DuSablon was or should\\n\\f6 No. 18-2809\\n\\nhave been aware of his asserted grounds for removal more\\nthan 30 days prior to his notice of removal.\\n Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion\\nin determining that DuSablon lacked an objectively reasona-\\nble basis to remove the case to federal court.\\n Finally, JCB requests an award of costs and fees incurred\\nin defending this appeal.1 “[L]itigants who receive an award\\nof fees in the district court under § 1447(c) automatically re-\\nceive reimbursement for the expense of defending that award\\non appeal.” MB Fin., N.A. v. Stevens, 678 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.\\n2012). JCB is therefore “entitled to an award of ‘legal fees for\\nthe cost of work reasonably performed in defense of the dis-\\ntrict court’s decision.’” PNC Bank, 763 F.3d at 655 (quoting\\nM.B. Fin., 678 F.3d at 500). JCB has fourteen days from the date\\nof this decision to submit a statement of fees. DuSablon will\\nhave fourteen days to respond.\\n III. Conclusion\\n We DISMISS the appeal of the district court’s remand or-\\nder and AFFIRM its award of costs and fees.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1In its brief, JCB also requests fees under Federal Rule of Appellate\\nProcedure 38. But JCB did not file a separate motion under Rule 38, so we\\ndeny its request. See Vexol, S.A. de C.V. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 882 F.3d 633,\\n638 (7th Cir. 2018) (denying request for sanctions where party did not sub-\\nmit a “‘separately filed motion’” for sanctions) (quoting FED. R. APP. P. 38).\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":666,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588161,"string":"4,588,161"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Jackson County Bank v. Mathew DuSablon"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-06"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2809"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2809\\nJACKSON COUNTY BANK,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nMATHEW R. DUSABLON,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-01346 — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 14, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir-\\ncuit Judges.\\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Jackson County Bank sued its former\\nemployee, Mathew R. DuSablon, in Indiana state court, as-\\nserting various state law claims, including theft of property\\nand breach of contract. Following his unsuccessful motion to\\ndismiss, DuSablon removed the case to federal court. The dis-\\ntrict court remanded the case to state court for want of juris-\\ndiction and untimely removal and further ordered DuSablon\\n\\f2 No. 18-2809\\n\\nto pay the costs and fees for the wrongful removal. DuSablon\\nnow appeals the remand order and the district court’s impo-\\nsition of sanctions. We dismiss the appeal of the district\\ncourt’s remand order and affirm its award of costs and fees.\\n I. Background\\n Jackson County Bank (“JCB”) is an Indiana state-chartered\\nbank. Although not a registered broker-dealer, JCB had a\\nthird-party agreement with INVEST Financial Corporation, a\\nregistered broker-dealer, to offer securities to JCB customers.\\n Mathew R. DuSablon, who resides in Indiana, began\\nworking for JCB in 2007. In July 2017, JCB assigned DuSablon\\nto assist the bank in identifying and establishing an invest-\\nment business with a new third-party broker-dealer. DuSa-\\nblon, however, failed to perform his job and abruptly re-\\nsigned on January 8, 2018. JCB thereafter learned that DuSa-\\nblon had transferred customers’ accounts from JCB’s former\\nthird-party broker-dealer, INVEST, into his own name and\\nhad started a business to compete with JCB.\\n On February 28, 2018, JCB filed suit in Indiana state court,\\nseeking a preliminary injunction and asserting state-law\\nclaims against DuSablon, including violation of the Indiana\\nUniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, breach of fidu-\\nciary duty, tortious interference, unfair competition, civil con-\\nversion, and computer trespass. DuSablon moved to dismiss,\\narguing with references to federal law that JCB is an unli-\\ncensed broker-dealer and therefore lacks standing to enforce\\nits rights in the information at issue; and that Financial Indus-\\ntry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) rules bar the suit.\\nJCB responded that it had standing and is not subject to\\nFINRA rules. The court denied the motion on April 20, 2018.\\n\\fNo. 18-2809 3\\n\\n Days later, on May 2, 2018, DuSablon removed this case to\\nthe United States District Court for the Southern District of\\nIndiana, asserting that the federal district court “has exclusive\\njurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and the Securities\\nand Exchange Act of 1934.” Acknowledging that JCB did not\\nplead a federal claim, DuSablon contended that JCB’s re-\\nsponse to his motion to dismiss in state court “raises a federal\\nquestion as all of [JCB’s] claims against [DuSablon] rest upon\\nthe legality of direct participation in the securities industry\\nwhich is determined and regulated by the [Securities] Act.”\\n On May 11, 2018, JCB moved to remand for lack of juris-\\ndiction, and also argued, among other things, that DuSablon\\nused the removal statute inappropriately to postpone prelim-\\ninary injunction proceedings in state court and “run the\\nclock” on his non-compete. The district court granted the mo-\\ntion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and that the re-\\nmoval was untimely. The district court accordingly remanded\\nthe case to state court and additionally ordered DuSablon to\\npay JCB costs and fees of $9,035.61 under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).\\n II. Discussion\\n DuSablon appeals the district court’s remand and sanc-\\ntions orders. JCB, for its part, requests additional costs and\\nfees under § 1447(c) for its defense of this appeal.\\n DuSablon challenges the district court’s order remanding\\nthis case to state court. But “[a]n order remanding a case to\\nthe State court from which it was removed is not reviewable\\non appeal or otherwise,” subject to exceptions not pertinent\\nhere. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Spencer,\\n763 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). We therefore dismiss\\nthis aspect of DuSablon’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See\\n\\f4 No. 18-2809\\n\\nAdkins v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 326 F.3d 828, 834 (7th Cir. 2003)\\n(“[T]he rule of nonreviewability … in § 1447(d) means that\\neven remands based on an erroneous belief in the lack of fed-\\neral subject matter jurisdiction cannot be reviewed….”).\\n DuSablon next challenges the district court’s award of\\ncosts and fees to JCB pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This we\\ncan review. See, e.g., Garbie v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 211 F.3d\\n407, 409–10 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that an appellate court has\\njurisdiction to review sanctions under § 1447(c)). Under\\n§ 1447(c), “‘[a]n order remanding a removed case to state\\ncourt ‘may require payment of just costs and any actual ex-\\npenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the re-\\nmoval.’” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134 (2005)\\n(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). A district court may award fees\\nunder § 1447(c) where “the removing party lacked an ‘objec-\\ntively reasonable basis’” for seeking removal. Wolf v. Kennelly,\\n574 F.3d 406, 411 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Martin, 546 U.S. at\\n141). Sanctions may be awarded when removal is clearly im-\\nproper, id., but not necessarily frivolous, Martin, 546 U.S. at\\n138–40 (further explaining the rationale for fee-shifting in ap-\\npropriate cases).\\n We review a district court’s decision to award sanctions\\nfor abuse of discretion. See Wolf, 574 F.3d at 410. And here, we\\nfind no abuse of discretion, as we agree that DuSablon lacked\\nan objectively reasonable basis to remove this case to federal\\ncourt. The impropriety of removal, as the district court ob-\\nserved, was “not a close question.” JCB did not plead any fed-\\neral claim nor is any federal question apparent from the face\\nof its complaint. See Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs, Inc., 205\\nF.3d 983, 986 (7th Cir. 2000). The complaint is based entirely\\non state law and any potential federal defense cannot form the\\n\\fNo. 18-2809 5\\n\\nbasis for removal. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,\\n392 (1987); Studer v. Katherine Shaw Bethea Hosp., 867 F.3d 721,\\n723 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n DuSablon nonetheless argues that JCB’s state law claims\\ninvolve significant questions of federal securities laws. But\\nDuSablon cannot manufacture a basis for removal by inject-\\ning federal issues into a case under these circumstances. See\\nPanther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC, 827 F.3d 586,\\n589 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding in a breach of contract action that\\nan allegation that a defendant violated federal statutes is in-\\nsufficient to create subject-matter jurisdiction). This is partic-\\nularly so because, as the district court observed, DuSablon\\ncited no cases supporting his position nor attempted to apply\\ncontrolling law, namely Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Da-\\nrue Eng’r & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314–15 (2005) (invoking federal\\njurisdiction over state law claim to quiet title to property\\nseized by federal government where the validity of the sei-\\nzure was “the only legal or factual issue[] in the case”).\\n Other considerations support the district court’s exercise\\nof discretion. The first is the court’s finding that “DuSablon’s\\nconduct in defending the motion to remand” suggested that\\n“removal was undertaken at least in part to delay a resolution\\nof the noncompete issues to his benefit and to allow for a sec-\\nond bite at the apple after losing his motion to dismiss in state\\ncourt.” We see no clear error in this finding. The second con-\\nsideration is the untimeliness of DuSablon’s removal. Despite\\nhis claimed ignorance of the supposed substantial federal\\nquestion until JCB responded to his motion to dismiss, DuSa-\\nblon’s motion itself raised many issues of federal law. The dis-\\ntrict court properly determined that DuSablon was or should\\n\\f6 No. 18-2809\\n\\nhave been aware of his asserted grounds for removal more\\nthan 30 days prior to his notice of removal.\\n Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion\\nin determining that DuSablon lacked an objectively reasona-\\nble basis to remove the case to federal court.\\n Finally, JCB requests an award of costs and fees incurred\\nin defending this appeal.1 “[L]itigants who receive an award\\nof fees in the district court under § 1447(c) automatically re-\\nceive reimbursement for the expense of defending that award\\non appeal.” MB Fin., N.A. v. Stevens, 678 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.\\n2012). JCB is therefore “entitled to an award of ‘legal fees for\\nthe cost of work reasonably performed in defense of the dis-\\ntrict court’s decision.’” PNC Bank, 763 F.3d at 655 (quoting\\nM.B. Fin., 678 F.3d at 500). JCB has fourteen days from the date\\nof this decision to submit a statement of fees. DuSablon will\\nhave fourteen days to respond.\\n III. Conclusion\\n We DISMISS the appeal of the district court’s remand or-\\nder and AFFIRM its award of costs and fees.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1In its brief, JCB also requests fees under Federal Rule of Appellate\\nProcedure 38. But JCB did not file a separate motion under Rule 38, so we\\ndeny its request. See Vexol, S.A. de C.V. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 882 F.3d 633,\\n638 (7th Cir. 2018) (denying request for sanctions where party did not sub-\\nmit a “‘separately filed motion’” for sanctions) (quoting FED. R. APP. P. 38).\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4365414/\", \"author_raw\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Cir cuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Cir cuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588161/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Jackson County Bank v. Mathew DuSablon\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-06\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2809\nJACKSON COUNTY BANK,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nMATHEW R. DUSABLON,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\n No. 1:18-cv-01346 — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED JANUARY 14, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir-\ncuit Judges.\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Jackson County Bank sued its former\nemployee, Mathew R. DuSablon, in Indiana state court, as-\nserting various state law claims, including theft of property\nand breach of contract. Following his unsuccessful motion to\ndismiss, DuSablon removed the case to federal court. The dis-\ntrict court remanded the case to state court for want of juris-\ndiction and untimely removal and further ordered DuSablon\n\f2 No. 18-2809\n\nto pay the costs and fees for the wrongful removal. DuSablon\nnow appeals the remand order and the district court’s impo-\nsition of sanctions. We dismiss the appeal of the district\ncourt’s remand order and affirm its award of costs and fees.\n I. Background\n Jackson County Bank (“JCB”) is an Indiana state-chartered\nbank. Although not a registered broker-dealer, JCB had a\nthird-party agreement with INVEST Financial Corporation, a\nregistered broker-dealer, to offer securities to JCB customers.\n Mathew R. DuSablon, who resides in Indiana, began\nworking for JCB in 2007. In July 2017, JCB assigned DuSablon\nto assist the bank in identifying and establishing an invest-\nment business with a new third-party broker-dealer. DuSa-\nblon, however, failed to perform his job and abruptly re-\nsigned on January 8, 2018. JCB thereafter learned that DuSa-\nblon had transferred customers’ accounts from JCB’s former\nthird-party broker-dealer, INVEST, into his own name and\nhad started a business to compete with JCB.\n On February 28, 2018, JCB filed suit in Indiana state court,\nseeking a preliminary injunction and asserting state-law\nclaims against DuSablon, including violation of the Indiana\nUniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, breach of fidu-\nciary duty, tortious interference, unfair competition, civil con-\nversion, and computer trespass. DuSablon moved to dismiss,\narguing with references to federal law that JCB is an unli-\ncensed broker-dealer and therefore lacks standing to enforce\nits rights in the information at issue; and that Financial Indus-\ntry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) rules bar the suit.\nJCB responded that it had standing and is not subject to\nFINRA rules. The court denied the motion on April 20, 2018.\n\fNo. 18-2809 3\n\n Days later, on May 2, 2018, DuSablon removed this case to\nthe United States District Court for the Southern District of\nIndiana, asserting that the federal district court “has exclusive\njurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and the Securities\nand Exchange Act of 1934.” Acknowledging that JCB did not\nplead a federal claim, DuSablon contended that JCB’s re-\nsponse to his motion to dismiss in state court “raises a federal\nquestion as all of [JCB’s] claims against [DuSablon] rest upon\nthe legality of direct participation in the securities industry\nwhich is determined and regulated by the [Securities] Act.”\n On May 11, 2018, JCB moved to remand for lack of juris-\ndiction, and also argued, among other things, that DuSablon\nused the removal statute inappropriately to postpone prelim-\ninary injunction proceedings in state court and “run the\nclock” on his non-compete. The district court granted the mo-\ntion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and that the re-\nmoval was untimely. The district court accordingly remanded\nthe case to state court and additionally ordered DuSablon to\npay JCB costs and fees of $9,035.61 under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).\n II. Discussion\n DuSablon appeals the district court’s remand and sanc-\ntions orders. JCB, for its part, requests additional costs and\nfees under § 1447(c) for its defense of this appeal.\n DuSablon challenges the district court’s order remanding\nthis case to state court. But “[a]n order remanding a case to\nthe State court from which it was removed is not reviewable\non appeal or otherwise,” subject to exceptions not pertinent\nhere. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Spencer,\n763 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). We therefore dismiss\nthis aspect of DuSablon’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See\n\f4 No. 18-2809\n\nAdkins v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 326 F.3d 828, 834 (7th Cir. 2003)\n(“[T]he rule of nonreviewability … in § 1447(d) means that\neven remands based on an erroneous belief in the lack of fed-\neral subject matter jurisdiction cannot be reviewed….”).\n DuSablon next challenges the district court’s award of\ncosts and fees to JCB pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This we\ncan review. See, e.g., Garbie v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 211 F.3d\n407, 409–10 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that an appellate court has\njurisdiction to review sanctions under § 1447(c)). Under\n§ 1447(c), “‘[a]n order remanding a removed case to state\ncourt ‘may require payment of just costs and any actual ex-\npenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the re-\nmoval.’” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134 (2005)\n(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). A district court may award fees\nunder § 1447(c) where “the removing party lacked an ‘objec-\ntively reasonable basis’” for seeking removal. Wolf v. Kennelly,\n574 F.3d 406, 411 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Martin, 546 U.S. at\n141). Sanctions may be awarded when removal is clearly im-\nproper, id., but not necessarily frivolous, Martin, 546 U.S. at\n138–40 (further explaining the rationale for fee-shifting in ap-\npropriate cases).\n We review a district court’s decision to award sanctions\nfor abuse of discretion. See Wolf, 574 F.3d at 410. And here, we\nfind no abuse of discretion, as we agree that DuSablon lacked\nan objectively reasonable basis to remove this case to federal\ncourt. The impropriety of removal, as the district court ob-\nserved, was “not a close question.” JCB did not plead any fed-\neral claim nor is any federal question apparent from the face\nof its complaint. See Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs, Inc., 205\nF.3d 983, 986 (7th Cir. 2000). The complaint is based entirely\non state law and any potential federal defense cannot form the\n\fNo. 18-2809 5\n\nbasis for removal. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,\n392 (1987); Studer v. Katherine Shaw Bethea Hosp., 867 F.3d 721,\n723 (7th Cir. 2017).\n DuSablon nonetheless argues that JCB’s state law claims\ninvolve significant questions of federal securities laws. But\nDuSablon cannot manufacture a basis for removal by inject-\ning federal issues into a case under these circumstances. See\nPanther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC, 827 F.3d 586,\n589 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding in a breach of contract action that\nan allegation that a defendant violated federal statutes is in-\nsufficient to create subject-matter jurisdiction). This is partic-\nularly so because, as the district court observed, DuSablon\ncited no cases supporting his position nor attempted to apply\ncontrolling law, namely Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Da-\nrue Eng’r & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314–15 (2005) (invoking federal\njurisdiction over state law claim to quiet title to property\nseized by federal government where the validity of the sei-\nzure was “the only legal or factual issue[] in the case”).\n Other considerations support the district court’s exercise\nof discretion. The first is the court’s finding that “DuSablon’s\nconduct in defending the motion to remand” suggested that\n“removal was undertaken at least in part to delay a resolution\nof the noncompete issues to his benefit and to allow for a sec-\nond bite at the apple after losing his motion to dismiss in state\ncourt.” We see no clear error in this finding. The second con-\nsideration is the untimeliness of DuSablon’s removal. Despite\nhis claimed ignorance of the supposed substantial federal\nquestion until JCB responded to his motion to dismiss, DuSa-\nblon’s motion itself raised many issues of federal law. The dis-\ntrict court properly determined that DuSablon was or should\n\f6 No. 18-2809\n\nhave been aware of his asserted grounds for removal more\nthan 30 days prior to his notice of removal.\n Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion\nin determining that DuSablon lacked an objectively reasona-\nble basis to remove the case to federal court.\n Finally, JCB requests an award of costs and fees incurred\nin defending this appeal.1 “[L]itigants who receive an award\nof fees in the district court under § 1447(c) automatically re-\nceive reimbursement for the expense of defending that award\non appeal.” MB Fin., N.A. v. Stevens, 678 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.\n2012). JCB is therefore “entitled to an award of ‘legal fees for\nthe cost of work reasonably performed in defense of the dis-\ntrict court’s decision.’” PNC Bank, 763 F.3d at 655 (quoting\nM.B. Fin., 678 F.3d at 500). JCB has fourteen days from the date\nof this decision to submit a statement of fees. DuSablon will\nhave fourteen days to respond.\n III. Conclusion\n We DISMISS the appeal of the district court’s remand or-\nder and AFFIRM its award of costs and fees.\n\n\n\n\n 1In its brief, JCB also requests fees under Federal Rule of Appellate\nProcedure 38. But JCB did not file a separate motion under Rule 38, so we\ndeny its request. See Vexol, S.A. de C.V. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 882 F.3d 633,\n638 (7th Cir. 2018) (denying request for sanctions where party did not sub-\nmit a “‘separately filed motion’” for sanctions) (quoting FED. R. APP. P. 38).\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Jackson County Bank v. Mathew DuSablon\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-06\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2809\\nJACKSON COUNTY BANK,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nMATHEW R. DUSABLON,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-01346 — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 14, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir-\\ncuit Judges.\\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Jackson County Bank sued its former\\nemployee, Mathew R. DuSablon, in Indiana state court, as-\\nserting various state law claims, including theft of property\\nand breach of contract. Following his unsuccessful motion to\\ndismiss, DuSablon removed the case to federal court. The dis-\\ntrict court remanded the case to state court for want of juris-\\ndiction and untimely removal and further ordered DuSablon\\n\\f2 No. 18-2809\\n\\nto pay the costs and fees for the wrongful removal. DuSablon\\nnow appeals the remand order and the district court’s impo-\\nsition of sanctions. We dismiss the appeal of the district\\ncourt’s remand order and affirm its award of costs and fees.\\n I. Background\\n Jackson County Bank (“JCB”) is an Indiana state-chartered\\nbank. Although not a registered broker-dealer, JCB had a\\nthird-party agreement with INVEST Financial Corporation, a\\nregistered broker-dealer, to offer securities to JCB customers.\\n Mathew R. DuSablon, who resides in Indiana, began\\nworking for JCB in 2007. In July 2017, JCB assigned DuSablon\\nto assist the bank in identifying and establishing an invest-\\nment business with a new third-party broker-dealer. DuSa-\\nblon, however, failed to perform his job and abruptly re-\\nsigned on January 8, 2018. JCB thereafter learned that DuSa-\\nblon had transferred customers’ accounts from JCB’s former\\nthird-party broker-dealer, INVEST, into his own name and\\nhad started a business to compete with JCB.\\n On February 28, 2018, JCB filed suit in Indiana state court,\\nseeking a preliminary injunction and asserting state-law\\nclaims against DuSablon, including violation of the Indiana\\nUniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, breach of fidu-\\nciary duty, tortious interference, unfair competition, civil con-\\nversion, and computer trespass. DuSablon moved to dismiss,\\narguing with references to federal law that JCB is an unli-\\ncensed broker-dealer and therefore lacks standing to enforce\\nits rights in the information at issue; and that Financial Indus-\\ntry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) rules bar the suit.\\nJCB responded that it had standing and is not subject to\\nFINRA rules. The court denied the motion on April 20, 2018.\\n\\fNo. 18-2809 3\\n\\n Days later, on May 2, 2018, DuSablon removed this case to\\nthe United States District Court for the Southern District of\\nIndiana, asserting that the federal district court “has exclusive\\njurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and the Securities\\nand Exchange Act of 1934.” Acknowledging that JCB did not\\nplead a federal claim, DuSablon contended that JCB’s re-\\nsponse to his motion to dismiss in state court “raises a federal\\nquestion as all of [JCB’s] claims against [DuSablon] rest upon\\nthe legality of direct participation in the securities industry\\nwhich is determined and regulated by the [Securities] Act.”\\n On May 11, 2018, JCB moved to remand for lack of juris-\\ndiction, and also argued, among other things, that DuSablon\\nused the removal statute inappropriately to postpone prelim-\\ninary injunction proceedings in state court and “run the\\nclock” on his non-compete. The district court granted the mo-\\ntion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and that the re-\\nmoval was untimely. The district court accordingly remanded\\nthe case to state court and additionally ordered DuSablon to\\npay JCB costs and fees of $9,035.61 under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).\\n II. Discussion\\n DuSablon appeals the district court’s remand and sanc-\\ntions orders. JCB, for its part, requests additional costs and\\nfees under § 1447(c) for its defense of this appeal.\\n DuSablon challenges the district court’s order remanding\\nthis case to state court. But “[a]n order remanding a case to\\nthe State court from which it was removed is not reviewable\\non appeal or otherwise,” subject to exceptions not pertinent\\nhere. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Spencer,\\n763 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). We therefore dismiss\\nthis aspect of DuSablon’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See\\n\\f4 No. 18-2809\\n\\nAdkins v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 326 F.3d 828, 834 (7th Cir. 2003)\\n(“[T]he rule of nonreviewability … in § 1447(d) means that\\neven remands based on an erroneous belief in the lack of fed-\\neral subject matter jurisdiction cannot be reviewed….”).\\n DuSablon next challenges the district court’s award of\\ncosts and fees to JCB pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This we\\ncan review. See, e.g., Garbie v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 211 F.3d\\n407, 409–10 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that an appellate court has\\njurisdiction to review sanctions under § 1447(c)). Under\\n§ 1447(c), “‘[a]n order remanding a removed case to state\\ncourt ‘may require payment of just costs and any actual ex-\\npenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the re-\\nmoval.’” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134 (2005)\\n(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). A district court may award fees\\nunder § 1447(c) where “the removing party lacked an ‘objec-\\ntively reasonable basis’” for seeking removal. Wolf v. Kennelly,\\n574 F.3d 406, 411 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Martin, 546 U.S. at\\n141). Sanctions may be awarded when removal is clearly im-\\nproper, id., but not necessarily frivolous, Martin, 546 U.S. at\\n138–40 (further explaining the rationale for fee-shifting in ap-\\npropriate cases).\\n We review a district court’s decision to award sanctions\\nfor abuse of discretion. See Wolf, 574 F.3d at 410. And here, we\\nfind no abuse of discretion, as we agree that DuSablon lacked\\nan objectively reasonable basis to remove this case to federal\\ncourt. The impropriety of removal, as the district court ob-\\nserved, was “not a close question.” JCB did not plead any fed-\\neral claim nor is any federal question apparent from the face\\nof its complaint. See Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs, Inc., 205\\nF.3d 983, 986 (7th Cir. 2000). The complaint is based entirely\\non state law and any potential federal defense cannot form the\\n\\fNo. 18-2809 5\\n\\nbasis for removal. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,\\n392 (1987); Studer v. Katherine Shaw Bethea Hosp., 867 F.3d 721,\\n723 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n DuSablon nonetheless argues that JCB’s state law claims\\ninvolve significant questions of federal securities laws. But\\nDuSablon cannot manufacture a basis for removal by inject-\\ning federal issues into a case under these circumstances. See\\nPanther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC, 827 F.3d 586,\\n589 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding in a breach of contract action that\\nan allegation that a defendant violated federal statutes is in-\\nsufficient to create subject-matter jurisdiction). This is partic-\\nularly so because, as the district court observed, DuSablon\\ncited no cases supporting his position nor attempted to apply\\ncontrolling law, namely Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Da-\\nrue Eng’r & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314–15 (2005) (invoking federal\\njurisdiction over state law claim to quiet title to property\\nseized by federal government where the validity of the sei-\\nzure was “the only legal or factual issue[] in the case”).\\n Other considerations support the district court’s exercise\\nof discretion. The first is the court’s finding that “DuSablon’s\\nconduct in defending the motion to remand” suggested that\\n“removal was undertaken at least in part to delay a resolution\\nof the noncompete issues to his benefit and to allow for a sec-\\nond bite at the apple after losing his motion to dismiss in state\\ncourt.” We see no clear error in this finding. The second con-\\nsideration is the untimeliness of DuSablon’s removal. Despite\\nhis claimed ignorance of the supposed substantial federal\\nquestion until JCB responded to his motion to dismiss, DuSa-\\nblon’s motion itself raised many issues of federal law. The dis-\\ntrict court properly determined that DuSablon was or should\\n\\f6 No. 18-2809\\n\\nhave been aware of his asserted grounds for removal more\\nthan 30 days prior to his notice of removal.\\n Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion\\nin determining that DuSablon lacked an objectively reasona-\\nble basis to remove the case to federal court.\\n Finally, JCB requests an award of costs and fees incurred\\nin defending this appeal.1 “[L]itigants who receive an award\\nof fees in the district court under § 1447(c) automatically re-\\nceive reimbursement for the expense of defending that award\\non appeal.” MB Fin., N.A. v. Stevens, 678 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.\\n2012). JCB is therefore “entitled to an award of ‘legal fees for\\nthe cost of work reasonably performed in defense of the dis-\\ntrict court’s decision.’” PNC Bank, 763 F.3d at 655 (quoting\\nM.B. Fin., 678 F.3d at 500). JCB has fourteen days from the date\\nof this decision to submit a statement of fees. DuSablon will\\nhave fourteen days to respond.\\n III. Conclusion\\n We DISMISS the appeal of the district court’s remand or-\\nder and AFFIRM its award of costs and fees.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1In its brief, JCB also requests fees under Federal Rule of Appellate\\nProcedure 38. But JCB did not file a separate motion under Rule 38, so we\\ndeny its request. See Vexol, S.A. de C.V. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 882 F.3d 633,\\n638 (7th Cir. 2018) (denying request for sanctions where party did not sub-\\nmit a “‘separately filed motion’” for sanctions) (quoting FED. R. APP. P. 38).\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":667,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588398,"string":"4,588,398"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dandre MOODY, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Dandre Moody"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1837"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Wood, Ripple, Barrett\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1837\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nDANDRE MOODY,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15-CR-350 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and BARRETT, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Within two days of helping his\\ncodefendants steal more than 100 guns from a train car, Dan-\\ndre Moody sold 13 of them to anonymous buyers who tele-\\nphoned him after they “heard about it.” He pleaded guilty to\\npossessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); pos-\\nsessing a stolen firearm, id. § 922(j); and cargo theft, id. § 659,\\nfor which he was sentenced to 93 months’ imprisonment.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1837\\n\\n Moody now appeals his sentence. He challenges, for the\\nfirst time, a four-level guideline enhancement under U.S.S.G.\\n§ 2K2.1(b)(5) for trafficking firearms to people he knew (or\\nhad reason to know) were unlawful users or possessors.1\\n We agree with Moody that the district court plainly erred\\nby imposing this enhancement. Nothing in the record sug-\\ngests that Moody had reason to believe that his buyers were\\nunlawful gun users or possessors. By finding that Moody had\\nsuch knowledge, the court plainly crossed the line that sepa-\\nrates permissible commonsense inference from impermissible\\nspeculation. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand\\nfor further sentencing proceedings.\\n I.\\n One night in April 2015, Moody drove a train-theft crew\\nto a railyard on the south side of Chicago. There, while part\\n\\n\\n 1 Moody has abandoned a different argument: that the district court\\nengaged in impermissible double-counting under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b) by\\napplying both the four-level trafficking enhancement and a four-level en-\\nhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony.\\nMoody asked to incorporate by reference this argument from a codefend-\\nant’s brief in an appeal that was not consolidated with this one. We need\\nnot address this argument for two reasons. First, as Moody conceded in\\nhis briefing, we rejected this double-counting theory from a codefendant’s\\nappeal, United States v. Shelton, 905 F.3d 1026, 1035 (7th Cir. 2018), and\\nMoody posits no grounds for overruling that decision. Second, because\\nthis case was not consolidated with Shelton’s, Moody was not permitted\\nto incorporate by reference his codefendant’s arguments. See Albrechtsen\\nv. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 435–36 (7th Cir.\\n2002) (“[A]ppellate briefs may not incorporate other documents by refer-\\nence.”); see also Parker v. Franklin Cty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 667 F.3d 910, 924\\n(7th Cir. 2012) (rejecting defendants’ attempt to incorporate by reference\\narguments in their prior district-court brief).\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 3\\n\\nof the crew broke into a parked train car and stole 111 guns,\\nMoody waited, ready to drive away with any merchandise\\nthat the crew might retrieve.\\n Moody’s share of the loot was 13 guns. Within two days,\\naccording to his uncontradicted testimony at his change-of-\\nplea hearing, he sold them to different anonymous buyers\\nwho phoned him after they had “heard about it.” Moody was\\nnot asked follow-up questions on the record about the nature\\nof “it,” and the presentence investigation report did nothing\\nto further clarify what the callers had heard. Of the crew’s sto-\\nlen guns, 33 were recovered before sentencing—17 at crime\\nscenes. The sentencing record does not, however, tie Moody\\nto any of the recovered guns. Moody pleaded guilty to pos-\\nsessing a gun as a felon, possessing a stolen gun, and cargo\\ntheft.\\n Sentencing followed. The district court began the sentenc-\\ning hearing by confirming that Moody had reviewed the\\nPSR’s guidelines calculation (which included the enhance-\\nment at issue here, but not any factual detail on that point)\\nwith counsel, had filed no objections, and planned to make\\nnone. The court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of\\n121 to 151 months’ imprisonment. In doing so, it applied three\\nenhancements from the 2016 Guidelines Manual, including a\\nfour-level enhancement pursuant to 2K2.1(b)(5) because the\\noffense involved trafficking in firearms. The court reasoned\\nthat this enhancement applied because Moody had sold his\\nshare of stolen guns “literally to anyone who called express-\\ning an interest in getting” them, and the court presumed that\\nat least several of these people would use them in future\\ncrimes. The court said that this conduct posed a danger to the\\n\\f4 No. 18-1837\\n\\ncommunity because “many [of the guns] have been recovered\\nin Chicago, many of them at crime scenes.” It continued:\\n I know, Mr. Moody, that you don’t for a second\\n believe that any of those folks were interested in\\n lawfully possessing a firearm. There is abso-\\n lutely no question that the people that were\\n seeking to buy those firearms wanted those fire-\\n arms to support other unlawful activity beyond\\n their possession of the firearms. Whether it was\\n drug trafficking, whether it was violent crime,\\n whether it was burglary, robbery, that’s who\\n buys guns that have been stolen off a train.\\n The court sentenced Moody to a prison term of 93 months,\\nwhich was below the advisory Guidelines range.\\n II.\\n Moody argues that the district court wrongly applied the\\nfirearm-trafficking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).\\nHe maintains that the government did not provide sufficient\\nevidence that he had reason to believe that 2 or more of the 13\\nbuyers either were legally barred from firearm possession (by\\nvirtue of a prior conviction for, say, a crime of violence like\\naggravated assault, see § 2K2.1 n.13(B) & § 4B1.2(a)(2)), or\\nwould use the guns in other crimes. Based on this record, he\\ncontends, someone in his shoes could at most reasonably\\nthink only that the callers wished to make an unlawful pur-\\nchase but not that they were otherwise barred from firearm\\npossession or would use the guns unlawfully.\\n Before tackling the merits of Moody’s argument, we must\\naddress a threshold issue: the parties’ dispute about whether\\nMoody’s failure to object in the district court to this\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 5\\n\\nenhancement means that he “waived” or merely “forfeited”\\nthis argument. Whether a defendant had reason to know of a\\ngun-buyer’s nefarious purpose is the kind of factual question\\nwe review for clear error if the issue is preserved. United States\\nv. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918 (7th Cir. 2001). But the even more\\ndeferential standard of plain-error review applies when an\\nobjection has been forfeited, and no review is available when\\nit has been waived. United States v. Oliver, 873 F.3d 601, 607\\n(7th Cir. 2017). An issue is waived when a defendant inten-\\ntionally relinquishes a known right; it is merely forfeited\\nwhen a defendant neglects to timely object. Id.\\n Here, the better view is that Moody forfeited rather than\\nwaived the objection. “The touchstone of waiver is a knowing\\nand intentional decision.” United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406\\nF.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2005). If the government cannot proffer\\nany strategic justification for a defendant’s omission, we will\\npresume an inadvertent forfeiture rather than an intentional\\nrelinquishment. Oliver, 873 F.3d at 607; cf. United States v.\\nYoung, 908 F.3d 241, 246–47 (7th Cir. 2018). No one has pro-\\nposed a strategic reason for Moody to have bypassed a chal-\\nlenge to a four-level enhancement. Thus, the claim is forfeited,\\nand we will review the district court’s decision for plain-error.\\nOliver, 873 F.3d at 607.\\n Under the plain-error standard, Moody must show that\\nthe error is not subject to reasonable dispute, that it affected\\nhis substantial rights, and that it diminished the fairness, in-\\ntegrity, or reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id.; Molina-\\nMartinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016); Fed. R.\\nCrim. P. 52(b). Although that standard is demanding, Moody\\nmeets it.\\n\\f6 No. 18-1837\\n\\n U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) directs a court to increase a defend-\\nant’s offense level by four for the “trafficking” of firearms. As\\nrelevant here, this means that the defendant “knew or had\\nreason to believe” that, for at least two guns, the recipient in-\\ntended to use the weapon in a further crime or was already a\\nperson prohibited, by federal law on specified grounds, from\\npossessing guns. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A). A “person prohib-\\nited” is narrowly defined as someone “whose possession or\\nreceipt of the firearm would be unlawful.” Id. Such a person\\n“(i) has a prior conviction for a crime of violence, a controlled\\nsubstance offense, or a misdemeanor crime of domestic vio-\\nlence; or (ii) at the time of the offense was under a criminal justice\\nsentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, im-\\nprisonment, work release, or escape status.” Id. at n.13(B) (em-\\nphasis added). The government bears the burden of proving\\nby a preponderance of the evidence that this enhancement is\\nwarranted. United States v. Johnson, 743 F.3d 196, 201 (7th Cir.\\n2014).\\n Moody attacks as impermissibly speculative the district\\ncourt’s conclusion that he had reason to believe that his buy-\\ners were barred from gun possession or that they intended to\\nuse the guns in crimes. In his view, the court assumed that the\\ncallers had heard about the train theft and were seeking to\\nbuy guns that they knew were stolen. And from that premise,\\nthe court inferred that the callers planned to use these guns in\\nother crimes, and, further, that Moody had reason to know it.\\nThe PSR and sentencing memoranda, meanwhile, offered no\\nsubstantiation for this chain of inferences.\\n The government counters that while Moody did not know\\nhis buyers’ identities, he surely knew that they were in the\\nmarket for stolen guns. Common sense, the government adds,\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 7\\n\\nwould say that few, if any, of these 13 anonymous buyers of\\nstolen guns would be permitted by federal law to possess\\nguns generally.\\n But the only evidence that the government offered on this\\npoint is Moody’s remark that he sold his share of the guns to\\n“different people who heard about it.” But what “it” refers to\\nis impossible to discern from the record. “It” might refer to\\nthe train heist, or “it” might refer to a bunch of guns (which\\nmay or may not be stolen) available for an off-the-books sale.\\nIf “it” merely refers to a load of guns for sale, then Moody’s\\nstatement simply establishes that he possessed stolen fire-\\narms. But that criminal act is already accounted for by his con-\\nviction for possessing a stolen firearm and does not justify the\\nenhancement. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). And the anonymous\\nparticipants’ interest in off-the-books gun sales might have\\ngiven Moody reason to believe that their purchases were un-\\nlawful, but not that their possession or use of the guns is un-\\nlawful. As Moody emphasizes, those who purchase guns un-\\nlawfully do not necessarily fall into the prohibited category\\ndefined by U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). For example, Lori Shelton,\\na lawful gun-owner identified in a codefendant’s sentencing\\nrecord, bought firearms from the heist. Shelton carried a valid\\nfirearm license and intended to give the guns to her adult chil-\\ndren once they, too, obtained licenses. The government cor-\\nrectly notes that Shelton’s intentional purchase of stolen prop-\\nerty was itself a crime in Illinois, see 720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4), but\\nthis did not make her a prohibited person under U.S.S.G. §\\n2K2.1 n.13(B).\\n Moody’s case thus stands in contrast to those in which the\\nseller knew something more about the buyers than that they\\nwere in the market for a gun. See, e.g., United States v.\\n\\f8 No. 18-1837\\n\\nRodriguez, 884 F.3d 679, 679–81 (7th Cir. 2018) (upholding en-\\nhancement where defendant and recipient discussed using\\nguns unlawfully); United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\\n(7th Cir. 2001) (reasoning that it would be “naïve” to conclude\\nthat Jemison had no reason to think guns he sold to a gang\\nwould be used to commit other felonies; “the public [is] not\\nblissfully ignorant of the connection between criminal vio-\\nlence and street gangs”). Indeed, Moody’s case also stands in\\ncontrast to that of his codefendants because in their case, the\\ngovernment introduced evidence that they knew specific\\nbuyers were prohibited persons.2 His case is more like United\\nStates v. Green, 360 F. App’x. 521, 522–25 (5th Cir. 2010) (non-\\nprecedential disposition), in which the Fifth Circuit rejected\\nthe enhancement for a defendant who smuggled five guns to\\ntwo people in Mexico. The enhancement was based on the\\ndistrict court’s supposition that guns in Mexico are predomi-\\nnantly used by drug-trafficking organizations. The Fifth Cir-\\ncuit held that this supposition was too big a leap. Id. at 525.\\n In short, the government’s evidence that Moody sold guns\\nto “different people who heard about it” is an insufficient ba-\\nsis for concluding that Moody sold guns to 2 or more people\\nwho satisfied the narrow criteria of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A).\\nIn concluding otherwise, the district court relied on a series of\\ninferences that were plainly too speculative to support a\\n\\n\\n 2 We might feel differently about this case if the government had pre-\\nsented more evidence (e.g., if the government had shown that Moody’s\\nbuyers were connected to him and his train heist). But it is not clear from\\nthe record—not even the presentence investigation report or the govern-\\nment’s sentencing memo—what Moody knew or had reason to know\\nabout who his buyers were or why they wanted guns, beyond his admis-\\nsion that his callers had “heard about it.”\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 9\\n\\nfinding by a preponderance of the evidence. We therefore\\nagree with Moody that the enhancement was plainly im-\\nproper.\\n In so holding, we are mindful that our precedents allow a\\ndistrict court great leeway to make commonsense inferences.\\nSee, e.g., United States v. Gilmore, 60 F.3d 392, 393–94 (7th Cir.\\n1995); see also United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\\n(7th Cir. 2001). In Gilmore, we held that a district court did not\\nerr by inferring that the defendant had reason to believe the\\nguns he “lost” would be used unlawfully, even though the\\nonly evidence was that one of the guns was found at a crime\\nscene and Gilmore (the original gunowner) did not know the\\nidentities of the new owners. 60 F.3d at 394. But in Moody’s\\ncase, no such inference is available. Although 17 of the crew’s\\n111 firearms were found at crime scenes, no evidence ties any\\nof the guns found at crime scenes to those sold by Moody.\\nBecause the inferential leap required by common sense is too\\ngreat here, the government has not met its burden of proof.\\n Of course, this error is not reversible simply because it is\\nplain—we must also conclude that it affected Moody’s sub-\\nstantial rights and diminished the fairness, integrity, or repu-\\ntation of the judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has re-\\npeatedly emphasized that when an unpreserved guideline er-\\nror is plain, it typically affects both fundamental rights and\\nfairness by setting an incorrect range for the probable sen-\\ntence. See generally Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.\\n1338 (2016); Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897\\n(2018). That is true here. The district court gave no indication\\nthat it chose a sentence “irrespective of the Guidelines range.”\\nMolina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. at 1346. And without the enhance-\\nment, Moody’s advisory Guidelines range would drop from\\n\\f10 No. 18-1837\\n\\n121–151 months to 78–97 months. Because the district court’s\\ncurrent 93-month sentence was designed to fall below the\\nrange the judge had calculated, we cannot be confident that\\nthe court would have been unwilling to go even lower.\\n None of this is to say that Moody is assured a lighter sen-\\ntence on remand. Perhaps a revised PSR or other evidence\\nwill cure any ambiguity. And even if the gun-trafficking\\nguideline does not apply, the district court may consider\\nwhether, as a matter of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3553(a), Moody’s blindness to his buyers’ identities makes it\\nreasonable to refrain from going any lower. These possibili-\\nties are for the district court to consider in the first instance.\\n III.\\n The judgment of the district court is VACATED and\\nREMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this de-\\ncision.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4365651/\", \"author_raw\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588398/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dandre MOODY, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1837\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nDANDRE MOODY,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 15-CR-350 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and BARRETT, Circuit\nJudges.\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Within two days of helping his\ncodefendants steal more than 100 guns from a train car, Dan-\ndre Moody sold 13 of them to anonymous buyers who tele-\nphoned him after they “heard about it.” He pleaded guilty to\npossessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); pos-\nsessing a stolen firearm, id. § 922(j); and cargo theft, id. § 659,\nfor which he was sentenced to 93 months’ imprisonment.\n\f2 No. 18-1837\n\n Moody now appeals his sentence. He challenges, for the\nfirst time, a four-level guideline enhancement under U.S.S.G.\n§ 2K2.1(b)(5) for trafficking firearms to people he knew (or\nhad reason to know) were unlawful users or possessors.1\n We agree with Moody that the district court plainly erred\nby imposing this enhancement. Nothing in the record sug-\ngests that Moody had reason to believe that his buyers were\nunlawful gun users or possessors. By finding that Moody had\nsuch knowledge, the court plainly crossed the line that sepa-\nrates permissible commonsense inference from impermissible\nspeculation. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand\nfor further sentencing proceedings.\n I.\n One night in April 2015, Moody drove a train-theft crew\nto a railyard on the south side of Chicago. There, while part\n\n\n 1 Moody has abandoned a different argument: that the district court\nengaged in impermissible double-counting under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b) by\napplying both the four-level trafficking enhancement and a four-level en-\nhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony.\nMoody asked to incorporate by reference this argument from a codefend-\nant’s brief in an appeal that was not consolidated with this one. We need\nnot address this argument for two reasons. First, as Moody conceded in\nhis briefing, we rejected this double-counting theory from a codefendant’s\nappeal, United States v. Shelton, 905 F.3d 1026, 1035 (7th Cir. 2018), and\nMoody posits no grounds for overruling that decision. Second, because\nthis case was not consolidated with Shelton’s, Moody was not permitted\nto incorporate by reference his codefendant’s arguments. See Albrechtsen\nv. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 435–36 (7th Cir.\n2002) (“[A]ppellate briefs may not incorporate other documents by refer-\nence.”); see also Parker v. Franklin Cty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 667 F.3d 910, 924\n(7th Cir. 2012) (rejecting defendants’ attempt to incorporate by reference\narguments in their prior district-court brief).\n\fNo. 18-1837 3\n\nof the crew broke into a parked train car and stole 111 guns,\nMoody waited, ready to drive away with any merchandise\nthat the crew might retrieve.\n Moody’s share of the loot was 13 guns. Within two days,\naccording to his uncontradicted testimony at his change-of-\nplea hearing, he sold them to different anonymous buyers\nwho phoned him after they had “heard about it.” Moody was\nnot asked follow-up questions on the record about the nature\nof “it,” and the presentence investigation report did nothing\nto further clarify what the callers had heard. Of the crew’s sto-\nlen guns, 33 were recovered before sentencing—17 at crime\nscenes. The sentencing record does not, however, tie Moody\nto any of the recovered guns. Moody pleaded guilty to pos-\nsessing a gun as a felon, possessing a stolen gun, and cargo\ntheft.\n Sentencing followed. The district court began the sentenc-\ning hearing by confirming that Moody had reviewed the\nPSR’s guidelines calculation (which included the enhance-\nment at issue here, but not any factual detail on that point)\nwith counsel, had filed no objections, and planned to make\nnone. The court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of\n121 to 151 months’ imprisonment. In doing so, it applied three\nenhancements from the 2016 Guidelines Manual, including a\nfour-level enhancement pursuant to 2K2.1(b)(5) because the\noffense involved trafficking in firearms. The court reasoned\nthat this enhancement applied because Moody had sold his\nshare of stolen guns “literally to anyone who called express-\ning an interest in getting” them, and the court presumed that\nat least several of these people would use them in future\ncrimes. The court said that this conduct posed a danger to the\n\f4 No. 18-1837\n\ncommunity because “many [of the guns] have been recovered\nin Chicago, many of them at crime scenes.” It continued:\n I know, Mr. Moody, that you don’t for a second\n believe that any of those folks were interested in\n lawfully possessing a firearm. There is abso-\n lutely no question that the people that were\n seeking to buy those firearms wanted those fire-\n arms to support other unlawful activity beyond\n their possession of the firearms. Whether it was\n drug trafficking, whether it was violent crime,\n whether it was burglary, robbery, that’s who\n buys guns that have been stolen off a train.\n The court sentenced Moody to a prison term of 93 months,\nwhich was below the advisory Guidelines range.\n II.\n Moody argues that the district court wrongly applied the\nfirearm-trafficking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).\nHe maintains that the government did not provide sufficient\nevidence that he had reason to believe that 2 or more of the 13\nbuyers either were legally barred from firearm possession (by\nvirtue of a prior conviction for, say, a crime of violence like\naggravated assault, see § 2K2.1 n.13(B) & § 4B1.2(a)(2)), or\nwould use the guns in other crimes. Based on this record, he\ncontends, someone in his shoes could at most reasonably\nthink only that the callers wished to make an unlawful pur-\nchase but not that they were otherwise barred from firearm\npossession or would use the guns unlawfully.\n Before tackling the merits of Moody’s argument, we must\naddress a threshold issue: the parties’ dispute about whether\nMoody’s failure to object in the district court to this\n\fNo. 18-1837 5\n\nenhancement means that he “waived” or merely “forfeited”\nthis argument. Whether a defendant had reason to know of a\ngun-buyer’s nefarious purpose is the kind of factual question\nwe review for clear error if the issue is preserved. United States\nv. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918 (7th Cir. 2001). But the even more\ndeferential standard of plain-error review applies when an\nobjection has been forfeited, and no review is available when\nit has been waived. United States v. Oliver, 873 F.3d 601, 607\n(7th Cir. 2017). An issue is waived when a defendant inten-\ntionally relinquishes a known right; it is merely forfeited\nwhen a defendant neglects to timely object. Id.\n Here, the better view is that Moody forfeited rather than\nwaived the objection. “The touchstone of waiver is a knowing\nand intentional decision.” United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406\nF.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2005). If the government cannot proffer\nany strategic justification for a defendant’s omission, we will\npresume an inadvertent forfeiture rather than an intentional\nrelinquishment. Oliver, 873 F.3d at 607; cf. United States v.\nYoung, 908 F.3d 241, 246–47 (7th Cir. 2018). No one has pro-\nposed a strategic reason for Moody to have bypassed a chal-\nlenge to a four-level enhancement. Thus, the claim is forfeited,\nand we will review the district court’s decision for plain-error.\nOliver, 873 F.3d at 607.\n Under the plain-error standard, Moody must show that\nthe error is not subject to reasonable dispute, that it affected\nhis substantial rights, and that it diminished the fairness, in-\ntegrity, or reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id.; Molina-\nMartinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016); Fed. R.\nCrim. P. 52(b). Although that standard is demanding, Moody\nmeets it.\n\f6 No. 18-1837\n\n U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) directs a court to increase a defend-\nant’s offense level by four for the “trafficking” of firearms. As\nrelevant here, this means that the defendant “knew or had\nreason to believe” that, for at least two guns, the recipient in-\ntended to use the weapon in a further crime or was already a\nperson prohibited, by federal law on specified grounds, from\npossessing guns. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A). A “person prohib-\nited” is narrowly defined as someone “whose possession or\nreceipt of the firearm would be unlawful.” Id. Such a person\n“(i) has a prior conviction for a crime of violence, a controlled\nsubstance offense, or a misdemeanor crime of domestic vio-\nlence; or (ii) at the time of the offense was under a criminal justice\nsentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, im-\nprisonment, work release, or escape status.” Id. at n.13(B) (em-\nphasis added). The government bears the burden of proving\nby a preponderance of the evidence that this enhancement is\nwarranted. United States v. Johnson, 743 F.3d 196, 201 (7th Cir.\n2014).\n Moody attacks as impermissibly speculative the district\ncourt’s conclusion that he had reason to believe that his buy-\ners were barred from gun possession or that they intended to\nuse the guns in crimes. In his view, the court assumed that the\ncallers had heard about the train theft and were seeking to\nbuy guns that they knew were stolen. And from that premise,\nthe court inferred that the callers planned to use these guns in\nother crimes, and, further, that Moody had reason to know it.\nThe PSR and sentencing memoranda, meanwhile, offered no\nsubstantiation for this chain of inferences.\n The government counters that while Moody did not know\nhis buyers’ identities, he surely knew that they were in the\nmarket for stolen guns. Common sense, the government adds,\n\fNo. 18-1837 7\n\nwould say that few, if any, of these 13 anonymous buyers of\nstolen guns would be permitted by federal law to possess\nguns generally.\n But the only evidence that the government offered on this\npoint is Moody’s remark that he sold his share of the guns to\n“different people who heard about it.” But what “it” refers to\nis impossible to discern from the record. “It” might refer to\nthe train heist, or “it” might refer to a bunch of guns (which\nmay or may not be stolen) available for an off-the-books sale.\nIf “it” merely refers to a load of guns for sale, then Moody’s\nstatement simply establishes that he possessed stolen fire-\narms. But that criminal act is already accounted for by his con-\nviction for possessing a stolen firearm and does not justify the\nenhancement. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). And the anonymous\nparticipants’ interest in off-the-books gun sales might have\ngiven Moody reason to believe that their purchases were un-\nlawful, but not that their possession or use of the guns is un-\nlawful. As Moody emphasizes, those who purchase guns un-\nlawfully do not necessarily fall into the prohibited category\ndefined by U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). For example, Lori Shelton,\na lawful gun-owner identified in a codefendant’s sentencing\nrecord, bought firearms from the heist. Shelton carried a valid\nfirearm license and intended to give the guns to her adult chil-\ndren once they, too, obtained licenses. The government cor-\nrectly notes that Shelton’s intentional purchase of stolen prop-\nerty was itself a crime in Illinois, see 720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4), but\nthis did not make her a prohibited person under U.S.S.G. §\n2K2.1 n.13(B).\n Moody’s case thus stands in contrast to those in which the\nseller knew something more about the buyers than that they\nwere in the market for a gun. See, e.g., United States v.\n\f8 No. 18-1837\n\nRodriguez, 884 F.3d 679, 679–81 (7th Cir. 2018) (upholding en-\nhancement where defendant and recipient discussed using\nguns unlawfully); United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\n(7th Cir. 2001) (reasoning that it would be “naïve” to conclude\nthat Jemison had no reason to think guns he sold to a gang\nwould be used to commit other felonies; “the public [is] not\nblissfully ignorant of the connection between criminal vio-\nlence and street gangs”). Indeed, Moody’s case also stands in\ncontrast to that of his codefendants because in their case, the\ngovernment introduced evidence that they knew specific\nbuyers were prohibited persons.2 His case is more like United\nStates v. Green, 360 F. App’x. 521, 522–25 (5th Cir. 2010) (non-\nprecedential disposition), in which the Fifth Circuit rejected\nthe enhancement for a defendant who smuggled five guns to\ntwo people in Mexico. The enhancement was based on the\ndistrict court’s supposition that guns in Mexico are predomi-\nnantly used by drug-trafficking organizations. The Fifth Cir-\ncuit held that this supposition was too big a leap. Id. at 525.\n In short, the government’s evidence that Moody sold guns\nto “different people who heard about it” is an insufficient ba-\nsis for concluding that Moody sold guns to 2 or more people\nwho satisfied the narrow criteria of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A).\nIn concluding otherwise, the district court relied on a series of\ninferences that were plainly too speculative to support a\n\n\n 2 We might feel differently about this case if the government had pre-\nsented more evidence (e.g., if the government had shown that Moody’s\nbuyers were connected to him and his train heist). But it is not clear from\nthe record—not even the presentence investigation report or the govern-\nment’s sentencing memo—what Moody knew or had reason to know\nabout who his buyers were or why they wanted guns, beyond his admis-\nsion that his callers had “heard about it.”\n\fNo. 18-1837 9\n\nfinding by a preponderance of the evidence. We therefore\nagree with Moody that the enhancement was plainly im-\nproper.\n In so holding, we are mindful that our precedents allow a\ndistrict court great leeway to make commonsense inferences.\nSee, e.g., United States v. Gilmore, 60 F.3d 392, 393–94 (7th Cir.\n1995); see also United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\n(7th Cir. 2001). In Gilmore, we held that a district court did not\nerr by inferring that the defendant had reason to believe the\nguns he “lost” would be used unlawfully, even though the\nonly evidence was that one of the guns was found at a crime\nscene and Gilmore (the original gunowner) did not know the\nidentities of the new owners. 60 F.3d at 394. But in Moody’s\ncase, no such inference is available. Although 17 of the crew’s\n111 firearms were found at crime scenes, no evidence ties any\nof the guns found at crime scenes to those sold by Moody.\nBecause the inferential leap required by common sense is too\ngreat here, the government has not met its burden of proof.\n Of course, this error is not reversible simply because it is\nplain—we must also conclude that it affected Moody’s sub-\nstantial rights and diminished the fairness, integrity, or repu-\ntation of the judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has re-\npeatedly emphasized that when an unpreserved guideline er-\nror is plain, it typically affects both fundamental rights and\nfairness by setting an incorrect range for the probable sen-\ntence. See generally Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.\n1338 (2016); Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897\n(2018). That is true here. The district court gave no indication\nthat it chose a sentence “irrespective of the Guidelines range.”\nMolina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. at 1346. And without the enhance-\nment, Moody’s advisory Guidelines range would drop from\n\f10 No. 18-1837\n\n121–151 months to 78–97 months. Because the district court’s\ncurrent 93-month sentence was designed to fall below the\nrange the judge had calculated, we cannot be confident that\nthe court would have been unwilling to go even lower.\n None of this is to say that Moody is assured a lighter sen-\ntence on remand. Perhaps a revised PSR or other evidence\nwill cure any ambiguity. And even if the gun-trafficking\nguideline does not apply, the district court may consider\nwhether, as a matter of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.\n§ 3553(a), Moody’s blindness to his buyers’ identities makes it\nreasonable to refrain from going any lower. These possibili-\nties are for the district court to consider in the first instance.\n III.\n The judgment of the district court is VACATED and\nREMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this de-\ncision.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dandre MOODY, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1837\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nDANDRE MOODY,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15-CR-350 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and BARRETT, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Within two days of helping his\\ncodefendants steal more than 100 guns from a train car, Dan-\\ndre Moody sold 13 of them to anonymous buyers who tele-\\nphoned him after they “heard about it.” He pleaded guilty to\\npossessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); pos-\\nsessing a stolen firearm, id. § 922(j); and cargo theft, id. § 659,\\nfor which he was sentenced to 93 months’ imprisonment.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1837\\n\\n Moody now appeals his sentence. He challenges, for the\\nfirst time, a four-level guideline enhancement under U.S.S.G.\\n§ 2K2.1(b)(5) for trafficking firearms to people he knew (or\\nhad reason to know) were unlawful users or possessors.1\\n We agree with Moody that the district court plainly erred\\nby imposing this enhancement. Nothing in the record sug-\\ngests that Moody had reason to believe that his buyers were\\nunlawful gun users or possessors. By finding that Moody had\\nsuch knowledge, the court plainly crossed the line that sepa-\\nrates permissible commonsense inference from impermissible\\nspeculation. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand\\nfor further sentencing proceedings.\\n I.\\n One night in April 2015, Moody drove a train-theft crew\\nto a railyard on the south side of Chicago. There, while part\\n\\n\\n 1 Moody has abandoned a different argument: that the district court\\nengaged in impermissible double-counting under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b) by\\napplying both the four-level trafficking enhancement and a four-level en-\\nhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony.\\nMoody asked to incorporate by reference this argument from a codefend-\\nant’s brief in an appeal that was not consolidated with this one. We need\\nnot address this argument for two reasons. First, as Moody conceded in\\nhis briefing, we rejected this double-counting theory from a codefendant’s\\nappeal, United States v. Shelton, 905 F.3d 1026, 1035 (7th Cir. 2018), and\\nMoody posits no grounds for overruling that decision. Second, because\\nthis case was not consolidated with Shelton’s, Moody was not permitted\\nto incorporate by reference his codefendant’s arguments. See Albrechtsen\\nv. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 435–36 (7th Cir.\\n2002) (“[A]ppellate briefs may not incorporate other documents by refer-\\nence.”); see also Parker v. Franklin Cty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 667 F.3d 910, 924\\n(7th Cir. 2012) (rejecting defendants’ attempt to incorporate by reference\\narguments in their prior district-court brief).\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 3\\n\\nof the crew broke into a parked train car and stole 111 guns,\\nMoody waited, ready to drive away with any merchandise\\nthat the crew might retrieve.\\n Moody’s share of the loot was 13 guns. Within two days,\\naccording to his uncontradicted testimony at his change-of-\\nplea hearing, he sold them to different anonymous buyers\\nwho phoned him after they had “heard about it.” Moody was\\nnot asked follow-up questions on the record about the nature\\nof “it,” and the presentence investigation report did nothing\\nto further clarify what the callers had heard. Of the crew’s sto-\\nlen guns, 33 were recovered before sentencing—17 at crime\\nscenes. The sentencing record does not, however, tie Moody\\nto any of the recovered guns. Moody pleaded guilty to pos-\\nsessing a gun as a felon, possessing a stolen gun, and cargo\\ntheft.\\n Sentencing followed. The district court began the sentenc-\\ning hearing by confirming that Moody had reviewed the\\nPSR’s guidelines calculation (which included the enhance-\\nment at issue here, but not any factual detail on that point)\\nwith counsel, had filed no objections, and planned to make\\nnone. The court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of\\n121 to 151 months’ imprisonment. In doing so, it applied three\\nenhancements from the 2016 Guidelines Manual, including a\\nfour-level enhancement pursuant to 2K2.1(b)(5) because the\\noffense involved trafficking in firearms. The court reasoned\\nthat this enhancement applied because Moody had sold his\\nshare of stolen guns “literally to anyone who called express-\\ning an interest in getting” them, and the court presumed that\\nat least several of these people would use them in future\\ncrimes. The court said that this conduct posed a danger to the\\n\\f4 No. 18-1837\\n\\ncommunity because “many [of the guns] have been recovered\\nin Chicago, many of them at crime scenes.” It continued:\\n I know, Mr. Moody, that you don’t for a second\\n believe that any of those folks were interested in\\n lawfully possessing a firearm. There is abso-\\n lutely no question that the people that were\\n seeking to buy those firearms wanted those fire-\\n arms to support other unlawful activity beyond\\n their possession of the firearms. Whether it was\\n drug trafficking, whether it was violent crime,\\n whether it was burglary, robbery, that’s who\\n buys guns that have been stolen off a train.\\n The court sentenced Moody to a prison term of 93 months,\\nwhich was below the advisory Guidelines range.\\n II.\\n Moody argues that the district court wrongly applied the\\nfirearm-trafficking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).\\nHe maintains that the government did not provide sufficient\\nevidence that he had reason to believe that 2 or more of the 13\\nbuyers either were legally barred from firearm possession (by\\nvirtue of a prior conviction for, say, a crime of violence like\\naggravated assault, see § 2K2.1 n.13(B) & § 4B1.2(a)(2)), or\\nwould use the guns in other crimes. Based on this record, he\\ncontends, someone in his shoes could at most reasonably\\nthink only that the callers wished to make an unlawful pur-\\nchase but not that they were otherwise barred from firearm\\npossession or would use the guns unlawfully.\\n Before tackling the merits of Moody’s argument, we must\\naddress a threshold issue: the parties’ dispute about whether\\nMoody’s failure to object in the district court to this\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 5\\n\\nenhancement means that he “waived” or merely “forfeited”\\nthis argument. Whether a defendant had reason to know of a\\ngun-buyer’s nefarious purpose is the kind of factual question\\nwe review for clear error if the issue is preserved. United States\\nv. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918 (7th Cir. 2001). But the even more\\ndeferential standard of plain-error review applies when an\\nobjection has been forfeited, and no review is available when\\nit has been waived. United States v. Oliver, 873 F.3d 601, 607\\n(7th Cir. 2017). An issue is waived when a defendant inten-\\ntionally relinquishes a known right; it is merely forfeited\\nwhen a defendant neglects to timely object. Id.\\n Here, the better view is that Moody forfeited rather than\\nwaived the objection. “The touchstone of waiver is a knowing\\nand intentional decision.” United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406\\nF.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2005). If the government cannot proffer\\nany strategic justification for a defendant’s omission, we will\\npresume an inadvertent forfeiture rather than an intentional\\nrelinquishment. Oliver, 873 F.3d at 607; cf. United States v.\\nYoung, 908 F.3d 241, 246–47 (7th Cir. 2018). No one has pro-\\nposed a strategic reason for Moody to have bypassed a chal-\\nlenge to a four-level enhancement. Thus, the claim is forfeited,\\nand we will review the district court’s decision for plain-error.\\nOliver, 873 F.3d at 607.\\n Under the plain-error standard, Moody must show that\\nthe error is not subject to reasonable dispute, that it affected\\nhis substantial rights, and that it diminished the fairness, in-\\ntegrity, or reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id.; Molina-\\nMartinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016); Fed. R.\\nCrim. P. 52(b). Although that standard is demanding, Moody\\nmeets it.\\n\\f6 No. 18-1837\\n\\n U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) directs a court to increase a defend-\\nant’s offense level by four for the “trafficking” of firearms. As\\nrelevant here, this means that the defendant “knew or had\\nreason to believe” that, for at least two guns, the recipient in-\\ntended to use the weapon in a further crime or was already a\\nperson prohibited, by federal law on specified grounds, from\\npossessing guns. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A). A “person prohib-\\nited” is narrowly defined as someone “whose possession or\\nreceipt of the firearm would be unlawful.” Id. Such a person\\n“(i) has a prior conviction for a crime of violence, a controlled\\nsubstance offense, or a misdemeanor crime of domestic vio-\\nlence; or (ii) at the time of the offense was under a criminal justice\\nsentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, im-\\nprisonment, work release, or escape status.” Id. at n.13(B) (em-\\nphasis added). The government bears the burden of proving\\nby a preponderance of the evidence that this enhancement is\\nwarranted. United States v. Johnson, 743 F.3d 196, 201 (7th Cir.\\n2014).\\n Moody attacks as impermissibly speculative the district\\ncourt’s conclusion that he had reason to believe that his buy-\\ners were barred from gun possession or that they intended to\\nuse the guns in crimes. In his view, the court assumed that the\\ncallers had heard about the train theft and were seeking to\\nbuy guns that they knew were stolen. And from that premise,\\nthe court inferred that the callers planned to use these guns in\\nother crimes, and, further, that Moody had reason to know it.\\nThe PSR and sentencing memoranda, meanwhile, offered no\\nsubstantiation for this chain of inferences.\\n The government counters that while Moody did not know\\nhis buyers’ identities, he surely knew that they were in the\\nmarket for stolen guns. Common sense, the government adds,\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 7\\n\\nwould say that few, if any, of these 13 anonymous buyers of\\nstolen guns would be permitted by federal law to possess\\nguns generally.\\n But the only evidence that the government offered on this\\npoint is Moody’s remark that he sold his share of the guns to\\n“different people who heard about it.” But what “it” refers to\\nis impossible to discern from the record. “It” might refer to\\nthe train heist, or “it” might refer to a bunch of guns (which\\nmay or may not be stolen) available for an off-the-books sale.\\nIf “it” merely refers to a load of guns for sale, then Moody’s\\nstatement simply establishes that he possessed stolen fire-\\narms. But that criminal act is already accounted for by his con-\\nviction for possessing a stolen firearm and does not justify the\\nenhancement. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). And the anonymous\\nparticipants’ interest in off-the-books gun sales might have\\ngiven Moody reason to believe that their purchases were un-\\nlawful, but not that their possession or use of the guns is un-\\nlawful. As Moody emphasizes, those who purchase guns un-\\nlawfully do not necessarily fall into the prohibited category\\ndefined by U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). For example, Lori Shelton,\\na lawful gun-owner identified in a codefendant’s sentencing\\nrecord, bought firearms from the heist. Shelton carried a valid\\nfirearm license and intended to give the guns to her adult chil-\\ndren once they, too, obtained licenses. The government cor-\\nrectly notes that Shelton’s intentional purchase of stolen prop-\\nerty was itself a crime in Illinois, see 720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4), but\\nthis did not make her a prohibited person under U.S.S.G. §\\n2K2.1 n.13(B).\\n Moody’s case thus stands in contrast to those in which the\\nseller knew something more about the buyers than that they\\nwere in the market for a gun. See, e.g., United States v.\\n\\f8 No. 18-1837\\n\\nRodriguez, 884 F.3d 679, 679–81 (7th Cir. 2018) (upholding en-\\nhancement where defendant and recipient discussed using\\nguns unlawfully); United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\\n(7th Cir. 2001) (reasoning that it would be “naïve” to conclude\\nthat Jemison had no reason to think guns he sold to a gang\\nwould be used to commit other felonies; “the public [is] not\\nblissfully ignorant of the connection between criminal vio-\\nlence and street gangs”). Indeed, Moody’s case also stands in\\ncontrast to that of his codefendants because in their case, the\\ngovernment introduced evidence that they knew specific\\nbuyers were prohibited persons.2 His case is more like United\\nStates v. Green, 360 F. App’x. 521, 522–25 (5th Cir. 2010) (non-\\nprecedential disposition), in which the Fifth Circuit rejected\\nthe enhancement for a defendant who smuggled five guns to\\ntwo people in Mexico. The enhancement was based on the\\ndistrict court’s supposition that guns in Mexico are predomi-\\nnantly used by drug-trafficking organizations. The Fifth Cir-\\ncuit held that this supposition was too big a leap. Id. at 525.\\n In short, the government’s evidence that Moody sold guns\\nto “different people who heard about it” is an insufficient ba-\\nsis for concluding that Moody sold guns to 2 or more people\\nwho satisfied the narrow criteria of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A).\\nIn concluding otherwise, the district court relied on a series of\\ninferences that were plainly too speculative to support a\\n\\n\\n 2 We might feel differently about this case if the government had pre-\\nsented more evidence (e.g., if the government had shown that Moody’s\\nbuyers were connected to him and his train heist). But it is not clear from\\nthe record—not even the presentence investigation report or the govern-\\nment’s sentencing memo—what Moody knew or had reason to know\\nabout who his buyers were or why they wanted guns, beyond his admis-\\nsion that his callers had “heard about it.”\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 9\\n\\nfinding by a preponderance of the evidence. We therefore\\nagree with Moody that the enhancement was plainly im-\\nproper.\\n In so holding, we are mindful that our precedents allow a\\ndistrict court great leeway to make commonsense inferences.\\nSee, e.g., United States v. Gilmore, 60 F.3d 392, 393–94 (7th Cir.\\n1995); see also United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\\n(7th Cir. 2001). In Gilmore, we held that a district court did not\\nerr by inferring that the defendant had reason to believe the\\nguns he “lost” would be used unlawfully, even though the\\nonly evidence was that one of the guns was found at a crime\\nscene and Gilmore (the original gunowner) did not know the\\nidentities of the new owners. 60 F.3d at 394. But in Moody’s\\ncase, no such inference is available. Although 17 of the crew’s\\n111 firearms were found at crime scenes, no evidence ties any\\nof the guns found at crime scenes to those sold by Moody.\\nBecause the inferential leap required by common sense is too\\ngreat here, the government has not met its burden of proof.\\n Of course, this error is not reversible simply because it is\\nplain—we must also conclude that it affected Moody’s sub-\\nstantial rights and diminished the fairness, integrity, or repu-\\ntation of the judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has re-\\npeatedly emphasized that when an unpreserved guideline er-\\nror is plain, it typically affects both fundamental rights and\\nfairness by setting an incorrect range for the probable sen-\\ntence. See generally Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.\\n1338 (2016); Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897\\n(2018). That is true here. The district court gave no indication\\nthat it chose a sentence “irrespective of the Guidelines range.”\\nMolina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. at 1346. And without the enhance-\\nment, Moody’s advisory Guidelines range would drop from\\n\\f10 No. 18-1837\\n\\n121–151 months to 78–97 months. Because the district court’s\\ncurrent 93-month sentence was designed to fall below the\\nrange the judge had calculated, we cannot be confident that\\nthe court would have been unwilling to go even lower.\\n None of this is to say that Moody is assured a lighter sen-\\ntence on remand. Perhaps a revised PSR or other evidence\\nwill cure any ambiguity. And even if the gun-trafficking\\nguideline does not apply, the district court may consider\\nwhether, as a matter of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3553(a), Moody’s blindness to his buyers’ identities makes it\\nreasonable to refrain from going any lower. These possibili-\\nties are for the district court to consider in the first instance.\\n III.\\n The judgment of the district court is VACATED and\\nREMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this de-\\ncision.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":668,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588427,"string":"4,588,427"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Dandre Moody"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1837"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1837\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nDANDRE MOODY,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15-CR-350 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and BARRETT, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Within two days of helping his\\ncodefendants steal more than 100 guns from a train car, Dan-\\ndre Moody sold 13 of them to anonymous buyers who tele-\\nphoned him after they “heard about it.” He pleaded guilty to\\npossessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); pos-\\nsessing a stolen firearm, id. § 922(j); and cargo theft, id. § 659,\\nfor which he was sentenced to 93 months’ imprisonment.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1837\\n\\n Moody now appeals his sentence. He challenges, for the\\nfirst time, a four-level guideline enhancement under U.S.S.G.\\n§ 2K2.1(b)(5) for trafficking firearms to people he knew (or\\nhad reason to know) were unlawful users or possessors.1\\n We agree with Moody that the district court plainly erred\\nby imposing this enhancement. Nothing in the record sug-\\ngests that Moody had reason to believe that his buyers were\\nunlawful gun users or possessors. By finding that Moody had\\nsuch knowledge, the court plainly crossed the line that sepa-\\nrates permissible commonsense inference from impermissible\\nspeculation. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand\\nfor further sentencing proceedings.\\n I.\\n One night in April 2015, Moody drove a train-theft crew\\nto a railyard on the south side of Chicago. There, while part\\n\\n\\n 1 Moody has abandoned a different argument: that the district court\\nengaged in impermissible double-counting under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b) by\\napplying both the four-level trafficking enhancement and a four-level en-\\nhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony.\\nMoody asked to incorporate by reference this argument from a codefend-\\nant’s brief in an appeal that was not consolidated with this one. We need\\nnot address this argument for two reasons. First, as Moody conceded in\\nhis briefing, we rejected this double-counting theory from a codefendant’s\\nappeal, United States v. Shelton, 905 F.3d 1026, 1035 (7th Cir. 2018), and\\nMoody posits no grounds for overruling that decision. Second, because\\nthis case was not consolidated with Shelton’s, Moody was not permitted\\nto incorporate by reference his codefendant’s arguments. See Albrechtsen\\nv. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 435–36 (7th Cir.\\n2002) (“[A]ppellate briefs may not incorporate other documents by refer-\\nence.”); see also Parker v. Franklin Cty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 667 F.3d 910, 924\\n(7th Cir. 2012) (rejecting defendants’ attempt to incorporate by reference\\narguments in their prior district-court brief).\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 3\\n\\nof the crew broke into a parked train car and stole 111 guns,\\nMoody waited, ready to drive away with any merchandise\\nthat the crew might retrieve.\\n Moody’s share of the loot was 13 guns. Within two days,\\naccording to his uncontradicted testimony at his change-of-\\nplea hearing, he sold them to different anonymous buyers\\nwho phoned him after they had “heard about it.” Moody was\\nnot asked follow-up questions on the record about the nature\\nof “it,” and the presentence investigation report did nothing\\nto further clarify what the callers had heard. Of the crew’s sto-\\nlen guns, 33 were recovered before sentencing—17 at crime\\nscenes. The sentencing record does not, however, tie Moody\\nto any of the recovered guns. Moody pleaded guilty to pos-\\nsessing a gun as a felon, possessing a stolen gun, and cargo\\ntheft.\\n Sentencing followed. The district court began the sentenc-\\ning hearing by confirming that Moody had reviewed the\\nPSR’s guidelines calculation (which included the enhance-\\nment at issue here, but not any factual detail on that point)\\nwith counsel, had filed no objections, and planned to make\\nnone. The court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of\\n121 to 151 months’ imprisonment. In doing so, it applied three\\nenhancements from the 2016 Guidelines Manual, including a\\nfour-level enhancement pursuant to 2K2.1(b)(5) because the\\noffense involved trafficking in firearms. The court reasoned\\nthat this enhancement applied because Moody had sold his\\nshare of stolen guns “literally to anyone who called express-\\ning an interest in getting” them, and the court presumed that\\nat least several of these people would use them in future\\ncrimes. The court said that this conduct posed a danger to the\\n\\f4 No. 18-1837\\n\\ncommunity because “many [of the guns] have been recovered\\nin Chicago, many of them at crime scenes.” It continued:\\n I know, Mr. Moody, that you don’t for a second\\n believe that any of those folks were interested in\\n lawfully possessing a firearm. There is abso-\\n lutely no question that the people that were\\n seeking to buy those firearms wanted those fire-\\n arms to support other unlawful activity beyond\\n their possession of the firearms. Whether it was\\n drug trafficking, whether it was violent crime,\\n whether it was burglary, robbery, that’s who\\n buys guns that have been stolen off a train.\\n The court sentenced Moody to a prison term of 93 months,\\nwhich was below the advisory Guidelines range.\\n II.\\n Moody argues that the district court wrongly applied the\\nfirearm-trafficking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).\\nHe maintains that the government did not provide sufficient\\nevidence that he had reason to believe that 2 or more of the 13\\nbuyers either were legally barred from firearm possession (by\\nvirtue of a prior conviction for, say, a crime of violence like\\naggravated assault, see § 2K2.1 n.13(B) & § 4B1.2(a)(2)), or\\nwould use the guns in other crimes. Based on this record, he\\ncontends, someone in his shoes could at most reasonably\\nthink only that the callers wished to make an unlawful pur-\\nchase but not that they were otherwise barred from firearm\\npossession or would use the guns unlawfully.\\n Before tackling the merits of Moody’s argument, we must\\naddress a threshold issue: the parties’ dispute about whether\\nMoody’s failure to object in the district court to this\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 5\\n\\nenhancement means that he “waived” or merely “forfeited”\\nthis argument. Whether a defendant had reason to know of a\\ngun-buyer’s nefarious purpose is the kind of factual question\\nwe review for clear error if the issue is preserved. United States\\nv. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918 (7th Cir. 2001). But the even more\\ndeferential standard of plain-error review applies when an\\nobjection has been forfeited, and no review is available when\\nit has been waived. United States v. Oliver, 873 F.3d 601, 607\\n(7th Cir. 2017). An issue is waived when a defendant inten-\\ntionally relinquishes a known right; it is merely forfeited\\nwhen a defendant neglects to timely object. Id.\\n Here, the better view is that Moody forfeited rather than\\nwaived the objection. “The touchstone of waiver is a knowing\\nand intentional decision.” United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406\\nF.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2005). If the government cannot proffer\\nany strategic justification for a defendant’s omission, we will\\npresume an inadvertent forfeiture rather than an intentional\\nrelinquishment. Oliver, 873 F.3d at 607; cf. United States v.\\nYoung, 908 F.3d 241, 246–47 (7th Cir. 2018). No one has pro-\\nposed a strategic reason for Moody to have bypassed a chal-\\nlenge to a four-level enhancement. Thus, the claim is forfeited,\\nand we will review the district court’s decision for plain-error.\\nOliver, 873 F.3d at 607.\\n Under the plain-error standard, Moody must show that\\nthe error is not subject to reasonable dispute, that it affected\\nhis substantial rights, and that it diminished the fairness, in-\\ntegrity, or reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id.; Molina-\\nMartinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016); Fed. R.\\nCrim. P. 52(b). Although that standard is demanding, Moody\\nmeets it.\\n\\f6 No. 18-1837\\n\\n U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) directs a court to increase a defend-\\nant’s offense level by four for the “trafficking” of firearms. As\\nrelevant here, this means that the defendant “knew or had\\nreason to believe” that, for at least two guns, the recipient in-\\ntended to use the weapon in a further crime or was already a\\nperson prohibited, by federal law on specified grounds, from\\npossessing guns. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A). A “person prohib-\\nited” is narrowly defined as someone “whose possession or\\nreceipt of the firearm would be unlawful.” Id. Such a person\\n“(i) has a prior conviction for a crime of violence, a controlled\\nsubstance offense, or a misdemeanor crime of domestic vio-\\nlence; or (ii) at the time of the offense was under a criminal justice\\nsentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, im-\\nprisonment, work release, or escape status.” Id. at n.13(B) (em-\\nphasis added). The government bears the burden of proving\\nby a preponderance of the evidence that this enhancement is\\nwarranted. United States v. Johnson, 743 F.3d 196, 201 (7th Cir.\\n2014).\\n Moody attacks as impermissibly speculative the district\\ncourt’s conclusion that he had reason to believe that his buy-\\ners were barred from gun possession or that they intended to\\nuse the guns in crimes. In his view, the court assumed that the\\ncallers had heard about the train theft and were seeking to\\nbuy guns that they knew were stolen. And from that premise,\\nthe court inferred that the callers planned to use these guns in\\nother crimes, and, further, that Moody had reason to know it.\\nThe PSR and sentencing memoranda, meanwhile, offered no\\nsubstantiation for this chain of inferences.\\n The government counters that while Moody did not know\\nhis buyers’ identities, he surely knew that they were in the\\nmarket for stolen guns. Common sense, the government adds,\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 7\\n\\nwould say that few, if any, of these 13 anonymous buyers of\\nstolen guns would be permitted by federal law to possess\\nguns generally.\\n But the only evidence that the government offered on this\\npoint is Moody’s remark that he sold his share of the guns to\\n“different people who heard about it.” But what “it” refers to\\nis impossible to discern from the record. “It” might refer to\\nthe train heist, or “it” might refer to a bunch of guns (which\\nmay or may not be stolen) available for an off-the-books sale.\\nIf “it” merely refers to a load of guns for sale, then Moody’s\\nstatement simply establishes that he possessed stolen fire-\\narms. But that criminal act is already accounted for by his con-\\nviction for possessing a stolen firearm and does not justify the\\nenhancement. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). And the anonymous\\nparticipants’ interest in off-the-books gun sales might have\\ngiven Moody reason to believe that their purchases were un-\\nlawful, but not that their possession or use of the guns is un-\\nlawful. As Moody emphasizes, those who purchase guns un-\\nlawfully do not necessarily fall into the prohibited category\\ndefined by U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). For example, Lori Shelton,\\na lawful gun-owner identified in a codefendant’s sentencing\\nrecord, bought firearms from the heist. Shelton carried a valid\\nfirearm license and intended to give the guns to her adult chil-\\ndren once they, too, obtained licenses. The government cor-\\nrectly notes that Shelton’s intentional purchase of stolen prop-\\nerty was itself a crime in Illinois, see 720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4), but\\nthis did not make her a prohibited person under U.S.S.G. §\\n2K2.1 n.13(B).\\n Moody’s case thus stands in contrast to those in which the\\nseller knew something more about the buyers than that they\\nwere in the market for a gun. See, e.g., United States v.\\n\\f8 No. 18-1837\\n\\nRodriguez, 884 F.3d 679, 679–81 (7th Cir. 2018) (upholding en-\\nhancement where defendant and recipient discussed using\\nguns unlawfully); United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\\n(7th Cir. 2001) (reasoning that it would be “naïve” to conclude\\nthat Jemison had no reason to think guns he sold to a gang\\nwould be used to commit other felonies; “the public [is] not\\nblissfully ignorant of the connection between criminal vio-\\nlence and street gangs”). Indeed, Moody’s case also stands in\\ncontrast to that of his codefendants because in their case, the\\ngovernment introduced evidence that they knew specific\\nbuyers were prohibited persons.2 His case is more like United\\nStates v. Green, 360 F. App’x. 521, 522–25 (5th Cir. 2010) (non-\\nprecedential disposition), in which the Fifth Circuit rejected\\nthe enhancement for a defendant who smuggled five guns to\\ntwo people in Mexico. The enhancement was based on the\\ndistrict court’s supposition that guns in Mexico are predomi-\\nnantly used by drug-trafficking organizations. The Fifth Cir-\\ncuit held that this supposition was too big a leap. Id. at 525.\\n In short, the government’s evidence that Moody sold guns\\nto “different people who heard about it” is an insufficient ba-\\nsis for concluding that Moody sold guns to 2 or more people\\nwho satisfied the narrow criteria of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A).\\nIn concluding otherwise, the district court relied on a series of\\ninferences that were plainly too speculative to support a\\n\\n\\n 2 We might feel differently about this case if the government had pre-\\nsented more evidence (e.g., if the government had shown that Moody’s\\nbuyers were connected to him and his train heist). But it is not clear from\\nthe record—not even the presentence investigation report or the govern-\\nment’s sentencing memo—what Moody knew or had reason to know\\nabout who his buyers were or why they wanted guns, beyond his admis-\\nsion that his callers had “heard about it.”\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 9\\n\\nfinding by a preponderance of the evidence. We therefore\\nagree with Moody that the enhancement was plainly im-\\nproper.\\n In so holding, we are mindful that our precedents allow a\\ndistrict court great leeway to make commonsense inferences.\\nSee, e.g., United States v. Gilmore, 60 F.3d 392, 393–94 (7th Cir.\\n1995); see also United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\\n(7th Cir. 2001). In Gilmore, we held that a district court did not\\nerr by inferring that the defendant had reason to believe the\\nguns he “lost” would be used unlawfully, even though the\\nonly evidence was that one of the guns was found at a crime\\nscene and Gilmore (the original gunowner) did not know the\\nidentities of the new owners. 60 F.3d at 394. But in Moody’s\\ncase, no such inference is available. Although 17 of the crew’s\\n111 firearms were found at crime scenes, no evidence ties any\\nof the guns found at crime scenes to those sold by Moody.\\nBecause the inferential leap required by common sense is too\\ngreat here, the government has not met its burden of proof.\\n Of course, this error is not reversible simply because it is\\nplain—we must also conclude that it affected Moody’s sub-\\nstantial rights and diminished the fairness, integrity, or repu-\\ntation of the judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has re-\\npeatedly emphasized that when an unpreserved guideline er-\\nror is plain, it typically affects both fundamental rights and\\nfairness by setting an incorrect range for the probable sen-\\ntence. See generally Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.\\n1338 (2016); Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897\\n(2018). That is true here. The district court gave no indication\\nthat it chose a sentence “irrespective of the Guidelines range.”\\nMolina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. at 1346. And without the enhance-\\nment, Moody’s advisory Guidelines range would drop from\\n\\f10 No. 18-1837\\n\\n121–151 months to 78–97 months. Because the district court’s\\ncurrent 93-month sentence was designed to fall below the\\nrange the judge had calculated, we cannot be confident that\\nthe court would have been unwilling to go even lower.\\n None of this is to say that Moody is assured a lighter sen-\\ntence on remand. Perhaps a revised PSR or other evidence\\nwill cure any ambiguity. And even if the gun-trafficking\\nguideline does not apply, the district court may consider\\nwhether, as a matter of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3553(a), Moody’s blindness to his buyers’ identities makes it\\nreasonable to refrain from going any lower. These possibili-\\nties are for the district court to consider in the first instance.\\n III.\\n The judgment of the district court is VACATED and\\nREMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this de-\\ncision.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4365680/\", \"author_raw\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"RIPPLE\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588427/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Dandre Moody\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1837\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nDANDRE MOODY,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 15-CR-350 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and BARRETT, Circuit\nJudges.\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Within two days of helping his\ncodefendants steal more than 100 guns from a train car, Dan-\ndre Moody sold 13 of them to anonymous buyers who tele-\nphoned him after they “heard about it.” He pleaded guilty to\npossessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); pos-\nsessing a stolen firearm, id. § 922(j); and cargo theft, id. § 659,\nfor which he was sentenced to 93 months’ imprisonment.\n\f2 No. 18-1837\n\n Moody now appeals his sentence. He challenges, for the\nfirst time, a four-level guideline enhancement under U.S.S.G.\n§ 2K2.1(b)(5) for trafficking firearms to people he knew (or\nhad reason to know) were unlawful users or possessors.1\n We agree with Moody that the district court plainly erred\nby imposing this enhancement. Nothing in the record sug-\ngests that Moody had reason to believe that his buyers were\nunlawful gun users or possessors. By finding that Moody had\nsuch knowledge, the court plainly crossed the line that sepa-\nrates permissible commonsense inference from impermissible\nspeculation. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand\nfor further sentencing proceedings.\n I.\n One night in April 2015, Moody drove a train-theft crew\nto a railyard on the south side of Chicago. There, while part\n\n\n 1 Moody has abandoned a different argument: that the district court\nengaged in impermissible double-counting under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b) by\napplying both the four-level trafficking enhancement and a four-level en-\nhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony.\nMoody asked to incorporate by reference this argument from a codefend-\nant’s brief in an appeal that was not consolidated with this one. We need\nnot address this argument for two reasons. First, as Moody conceded in\nhis briefing, we rejected this double-counting theory from a codefendant’s\nappeal, United States v. Shelton, 905 F.3d 1026, 1035 (7th Cir. 2018), and\nMoody posits no grounds for overruling that decision. Second, because\nthis case was not consolidated with Shelton’s, Moody was not permitted\nto incorporate by reference his codefendant’s arguments. See Albrechtsen\nv. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 435–36 (7th Cir.\n2002) (“[A]ppellate briefs may not incorporate other documents by refer-\nence.”); see also Parker v. Franklin Cty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 667 F.3d 910, 924\n(7th Cir. 2012) (rejecting defendants’ attempt to incorporate by reference\narguments in their prior district-court brief).\n\fNo. 18-1837 3\n\nof the crew broke into a parked train car and stole 111 guns,\nMoody waited, ready to drive away with any merchandise\nthat the crew might retrieve.\n Moody’s share of the loot was 13 guns. Within two days,\naccording to his uncontradicted testimony at his change-of-\nplea hearing, he sold them to different anonymous buyers\nwho phoned him after they had “heard about it.” Moody was\nnot asked follow-up questions on the record about the nature\nof “it,” and the presentence investigation report did nothing\nto further clarify what the callers had heard. Of the crew’s sto-\nlen guns, 33 were recovered before sentencing—17 at crime\nscenes. The sentencing record does not, however, tie Moody\nto any of the recovered guns. Moody pleaded guilty to pos-\nsessing a gun as a felon, possessing a stolen gun, and cargo\ntheft.\n Sentencing followed. The district court began the sentenc-\ning hearing by confirming that Moody had reviewed the\nPSR’s guidelines calculation (which included the enhance-\nment at issue here, but not any factual detail on that point)\nwith counsel, had filed no objections, and planned to make\nnone. The court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of\n121 to 151 months’ imprisonment. In doing so, it applied three\nenhancements from the 2016 Guidelines Manual, including a\nfour-level enhancement pursuant to 2K2.1(b)(5) because the\noffense involved trafficking in firearms. The court reasoned\nthat this enhancement applied because Moody had sold his\nshare of stolen guns “literally to anyone who called express-\ning an interest in getting” them, and the court presumed that\nat least several of these people would use them in future\ncrimes. The court said that this conduct posed a danger to the\n\f4 No. 18-1837\n\ncommunity because “many [of the guns] have been recovered\nin Chicago, many of them at crime scenes.” It continued:\n I know, Mr. Moody, that you don’t for a second\n believe that any of those folks were interested in\n lawfully possessing a firearm. There is abso-\n lutely no question that the people that were\n seeking to buy those firearms wanted those fire-\n arms to support other unlawful activity beyond\n their possession of the firearms. Whether it was\n drug trafficking, whether it was violent crime,\n whether it was burglary, robbery, that’s who\n buys guns that have been stolen off a train.\n The court sentenced Moody to a prison term of 93 months,\nwhich was below the advisory Guidelines range.\n II.\n Moody argues that the district court wrongly applied the\nfirearm-trafficking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).\nHe maintains that the government did not provide sufficient\nevidence that he had reason to believe that 2 or more of the 13\nbuyers either were legally barred from firearm possession (by\nvirtue of a prior conviction for, say, a crime of violence like\naggravated assault, see § 2K2.1 n.13(B) & § 4B1.2(a)(2)), or\nwould use the guns in other crimes. Based on this record, he\ncontends, someone in his shoes could at most reasonably\nthink only that the callers wished to make an unlawful pur-\nchase but not that they were otherwise barred from firearm\npossession or would use the guns unlawfully.\n Before tackling the merits of Moody’s argument, we must\naddress a threshold issue: the parties’ dispute about whether\nMoody’s failure to object in the district court to this\n\fNo. 18-1837 5\n\nenhancement means that he “waived” or merely “forfeited”\nthis argument. Whether a defendant had reason to know of a\ngun-buyer’s nefarious purpose is the kind of factual question\nwe review for clear error if the issue is preserved. United States\nv. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918 (7th Cir. 2001). But the even more\ndeferential standard of plain-error review applies when an\nobjection has been forfeited, and no review is available when\nit has been waived. United States v. Oliver, 873 F.3d 601, 607\n(7th Cir. 2017). An issue is waived when a defendant inten-\ntionally relinquishes a known right; it is merely forfeited\nwhen a defendant neglects to timely object. Id.\n Here, the better view is that Moody forfeited rather than\nwaived the objection. “The touchstone of waiver is a knowing\nand intentional decision.” United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406\nF.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2005). If the government cannot proffer\nany strategic justification for a defendant’s omission, we will\npresume an inadvertent forfeiture rather than an intentional\nrelinquishment. Oliver, 873 F.3d at 607; cf. United States v.\nYoung, 908 F.3d 241, 246–47 (7th Cir. 2018). No one has pro-\nposed a strategic reason for Moody to have bypassed a chal-\nlenge to a four-level enhancement. Thus, the claim is forfeited,\nand we will review the district court’s decision for plain-error.\nOliver, 873 F.3d at 607.\n Under the plain-error standard, Moody must show that\nthe error is not subject to reasonable dispute, that it affected\nhis substantial rights, and that it diminished the fairness, in-\ntegrity, or reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id.; Molina-\nMartinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016); Fed. R.\nCrim. P. 52(b). Although that standard is demanding, Moody\nmeets it.\n\f6 No. 18-1837\n\n U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) directs a court to increase a defend-\nant’s offense level by four for the “trafficking” of firearms. As\nrelevant here, this means that the defendant “knew or had\nreason to believe” that, for at least two guns, the recipient in-\ntended to use the weapon in a further crime or was already a\nperson prohibited, by federal law on specified grounds, from\npossessing guns. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A). A “person prohib-\nited” is narrowly defined as someone “whose possession or\nreceipt of the firearm would be unlawful.” Id. Such a person\n“(i) has a prior conviction for a crime of violence, a controlled\nsubstance offense, or a misdemeanor crime of domestic vio-\nlence; or (ii) at the time of the offense was under a criminal justice\nsentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, im-\nprisonment, work release, or escape status.” Id. at n.13(B) (em-\nphasis added). The government bears the burden of proving\nby a preponderance of the evidence that this enhancement is\nwarranted. United States v. Johnson, 743 F.3d 196, 201 (7th Cir.\n2014).\n Moody attacks as impermissibly speculative the district\ncourt’s conclusion that he had reason to believe that his buy-\ners were barred from gun possession or that they intended to\nuse the guns in crimes. In his view, the court assumed that the\ncallers had heard about the train theft and were seeking to\nbuy guns that they knew were stolen. And from that premise,\nthe court inferred that the callers planned to use these guns in\nother crimes, and, further, that Moody had reason to know it.\nThe PSR and sentencing memoranda, meanwhile, offered no\nsubstantiation for this chain of inferences.\n The government counters that while Moody did not know\nhis buyers’ identities, he surely knew that they were in the\nmarket for stolen guns. Common sense, the government adds,\n\fNo. 18-1837 7\n\nwould say that few, if any, of these 13 anonymous buyers of\nstolen guns would be permitted by federal law to possess\nguns generally.\n But the only evidence that the government offered on this\npoint is Moody’s remark that he sold his share of the guns to\n“different people who heard about it.” But what “it” refers to\nis impossible to discern from the record. “It” might refer to\nthe train heist, or “it” might refer to a bunch of guns (which\nmay or may not be stolen) available for an off-the-books sale.\nIf “it” merely refers to a load of guns for sale, then Moody’s\nstatement simply establishes that he possessed stolen fire-\narms. But that criminal act is already accounted for by his con-\nviction for possessing a stolen firearm and does not justify the\nenhancement. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). And the anonymous\nparticipants’ interest in off-the-books gun sales might have\ngiven Moody reason to believe that their purchases were un-\nlawful, but not that their possession or use of the guns is un-\nlawful. As Moody emphasizes, those who purchase guns un-\nlawfully do not necessarily fall into the prohibited category\ndefined by U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). For example, Lori Shelton,\na lawful gun-owner identified in a codefendant’s sentencing\nrecord, bought firearms from the heist. Shelton carried a valid\nfirearm license and intended to give the guns to her adult chil-\ndren once they, too, obtained licenses. The government cor-\nrectly notes that Shelton’s intentional purchase of stolen prop-\nerty was itself a crime in Illinois, see 720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4), but\nthis did not make her a prohibited person under U.S.S.G. §\n2K2.1 n.13(B).\n Moody’s case thus stands in contrast to those in which the\nseller knew something more about the buyers than that they\nwere in the market for a gun. See, e.g., United States v.\n\f8 No. 18-1837\n\nRodriguez, 884 F.3d 679, 679–81 (7th Cir. 2018) (upholding en-\nhancement where defendant and recipient discussed using\nguns unlawfully); United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\n(7th Cir. 2001) (reasoning that it would be “naïve” to conclude\nthat Jemison had no reason to think guns he sold to a gang\nwould be used to commit other felonies; “the public [is] not\nblissfully ignorant of the connection between criminal vio-\nlence and street gangs”). Indeed, Moody’s case also stands in\ncontrast to that of his codefendants because in their case, the\ngovernment introduced evidence that they knew specific\nbuyers were prohibited persons.2 His case is more like United\nStates v. Green, 360 F. App’x. 521, 522–25 (5th Cir. 2010) (non-\nprecedential disposition), in which the Fifth Circuit rejected\nthe enhancement for a defendant who smuggled five guns to\ntwo people in Mexico. The enhancement was based on the\ndistrict court’s supposition that guns in Mexico are predomi-\nnantly used by drug-trafficking organizations. The Fifth Cir-\ncuit held that this supposition was too big a leap. Id. at 525.\n In short, the government’s evidence that Moody sold guns\nto “different people who heard about it” is an insufficient ba-\nsis for concluding that Moody sold guns to 2 or more people\nwho satisfied the narrow criteria of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A).\nIn concluding otherwise, the district court relied on a series of\ninferences that were plainly too speculative to support a\n\n\n 2 We might feel differently about this case if the government had pre-\nsented more evidence (e.g., if the government had shown that Moody’s\nbuyers were connected to him and his train heist). But it is not clear from\nthe record—not even the presentence investigation report or the govern-\nment’s sentencing memo—what Moody knew or had reason to know\nabout who his buyers were or why they wanted guns, beyond his admis-\nsion that his callers had “heard about it.”\n\fNo. 18-1837 9\n\nfinding by a preponderance of the evidence. We therefore\nagree with Moody that the enhancement was plainly im-\nproper.\n In so holding, we are mindful that our precedents allow a\ndistrict court great leeway to make commonsense inferences.\nSee, e.g., United States v. Gilmore, 60 F.3d 392, 393–94 (7th Cir.\n1995); see also United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\n(7th Cir. 2001). In Gilmore, we held that a district court did not\nerr by inferring that the defendant had reason to believe the\nguns he “lost” would be used unlawfully, even though the\nonly evidence was that one of the guns was found at a crime\nscene and Gilmore (the original gunowner) did not know the\nidentities of the new owners. 60 F.3d at 394. But in Moody’s\ncase, no such inference is available. Although 17 of the crew’s\n111 firearms were found at crime scenes, no evidence ties any\nof the guns found at crime scenes to those sold by Moody.\nBecause the inferential leap required by common sense is too\ngreat here, the government has not met its burden of proof.\n Of course, this error is not reversible simply because it is\nplain—we must also conclude that it affected Moody’s sub-\nstantial rights and diminished the fairness, integrity, or repu-\ntation of the judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has re-\npeatedly emphasized that when an unpreserved guideline er-\nror is plain, it typically affects both fundamental rights and\nfairness by setting an incorrect range for the probable sen-\ntence. See generally Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.\n1338 (2016); Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897\n(2018). That is true here. The district court gave no indication\nthat it chose a sentence “irrespective of the Guidelines range.”\nMolina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. at 1346. And without the enhance-\nment, Moody’s advisory Guidelines range would drop from\n\f10 No. 18-1837\n\n121–151 months to 78–97 months. Because the district court’s\ncurrent 93-month sentence was designed to fall below the\nrange the judge had calculated, we cannot be confident that\nthe court would have been unwilling to go even lower.\n None of this is to say that Moody is assured a lighter sen-\ntence on remand. Perhaps a revised PSR or other evidence\nwill cure any ambiguity. And even if the gun-trafficking\nguideline does not apply, the district court may consider\nwhether, as a matter of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.\n§ 3553(a), Moody’s blindness to his buyers’ identities makes it\nreasonable to refrain from going any lower. These possibili-\nties are for the district court to consider in the first instance.\n III.\n The judgment of the district court is VACATED and\nREMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this de-\ncision.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Dandre Moody\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1837\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nDANDRE MOODY,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15-CR-350 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and BARRETT, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Within two days of helping his\\ncodefendants steal more than 100 guns from a train car, Dan-\\ndre Moody sold 13 of them to anonymous buyers who tele-\\nphoned him after they “heard about it.” He pleaded guilty to\\npossessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); pos-\\nsessing a stolen firearm, id. § 922(j); and cargo theft, id. § 659,\\nfor which he was sentenced to 93 months’ imprisonment.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1837\\n\\n Moody now appeals his sentence. He challenges, for the\\nfirst time, a four-level guideline enhancement under U.S.S.G.\\n§ 2K2.1(b)(5) for trafficking firearms to people he knew (or\\nhad reason to know) were unlawful users or possessors.1\\n We agree with Moody that the district court plainly erred\\nby imposing this enhancement. Nothing in the record sug-\\ngests that Moody had reason to believe that his buyers were\\nunlawful gun users or possessors. By finding that Moody had\\nsuch knowledge, the court plainly crossed the line that sepa-\\nrates permissible commonsense inference from impermissible\\nspeculation. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand\\nfor further sentencing proceedings.\\n I.\\n One night in April 2015, Moody drove a train-theft crew\\nto a railyard on the south side of Chicago. There, while part\\n\\n\\n 1 Moody has abandoned a different argument: that the district court\\nengaged in impermissible double-counting under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b) by\\napplying both the four-level trafficking enhancement and a four-level en-\\nhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony.\\nMoody asked to incorporate by reference this argument from a codefend-\\nant’s brief in an appeal that was not consolidated with this one. We need\\nnot address this argument for two reasons. First, as Moody conceded in\\nhis briefing, we rejected this double-counting theory from a codefendant’s\\nappeal, United States v. Shelton, 905 F.3d 1026, 1035 (7th Cir. 2018), and\\nMoody posits no grounds for overruling that decision. Second, because\\nthis case was not consolidated with Shelton’s, Moody was not permitted\\nto incorporate by reference his codefendant’s arguments. See Albrechtsen\\nv. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 435–36 (7th Cir.\\n2002) (“[A]ppellate briefs may not incorporate other documents by refer-\\nence.”); see also Parker v. Franklin Cty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 667 F.3d 910, 924\\n(7th Cir. 2012) (rejecting defendants’ attempt to incorporate by reference\\narguments in their prior district-court brief).\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 3\\n\\nof the crew broke into a parked train car and stole 111 guns,\\nMoody waited, ready to drive away with any merchandise\\nthat the crew might retrieve.\\n Moody’s share of the loot was 13 guns. Within two days,\\naccording to his uncontradicted testimony at his change-of-\\nplea hearing, he sold them to different anonymous buyers\\nwho phoned him after they had “heard about it.” Moody was\\nnot asked follow-up questions on the record about the nature\\nof “it,” and the presentence investigation report did nothing\\nto further clarify what the callers had heard. Of the crew’s sto-\\nlen guns, 33 were recovered before sentencing—17 at crime\\nscenes. The sentencing record does not, however, tie Moody\\nto any of the recovered guns. Moody pleaded guilty to pos-\\nsessing a gun as a felon, possessing a stolen gun, and cargo\\ntheft.\\n Sentencing followed. The district court began the sentenc-\\ning hearing by confirming that Moody had reviewed the\\nPSR’s guidelines calculation (which included the enhance-\\nment at issue here, but not any factual detail on that point)\\nwith counsel, had filed no objections, and planned to make\\nnone. The court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of\\n121 to 151 months’ imprisonment. In doing so, it applied three\\nenhancements from the 2016 Guidelines Manual, including a\\nfour-level enhancement pursuant to 2K2.1(b)(5) because the\\noffense involved trafficking in firearms. The court reasoned\\nthat this enhancement applied because Moody had sold his\\nshare of stolen guns “literally to anyone who called express-\\ning an interest in getting” them, and the court presumed that\\nat least several of these people would use them in future\\ncrimes. The court said that this conduct posed a danger to the\\n\\f4 No. 18-1837\\n\\ncommunity because “many [of the guns] have been recovered\\nin Chicago, many of them at crime scenes.” It continued:\\n I know, Mr. Moody, that you don’t for a second\\n believe that any of those folks were interested in\\n lawfully possessing a firearm. There is abso-\\n lutely no question that the people that were\\n seeking to buy those firearms wanted those fire-\\n arms to support other unlawful activity beyond\\n their possession of the firearms. Whether it was\\n drug trafficking, whether it was violent crime,\\n whether it was burglary, robbery, that’s who\\n buys guns that have been stolen off a train.\\n The court sentenced Moody to a prison term of 93 months,\\nwhich was below the advisory Guidelines range.\\n II.\\n Moody argues that the district court wrongly applied the\\nfirearm-trafficking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).\\nHe maintains that the government did not provide sufficient\\nevidence that he had reason to believe that 2 or more of the 13\\nbuyers either were legally barred from firearm possession (by\\nvirtue of a prior conviction for, say, a crime of violence like\\naggravated assault, see § 2K2.1 n.13(B) & § 4B1.2(a)(2)), or\\nwould use the guns in other crimes. Based on this record, he\\ncontends, someone in his shoes could at most reasonably\\nthink only that the callers wished to make an unlawful pur-\\nchase but not that they were otherwise barred from firearm\\npossession or would use the guns unlawfully.\\n Before tackling the merits of Moody’s argument, we must\\naddress a threshold issue: the parties’ dispute about whether\\nMoody’s failure to object in the district court to this\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 5\\n\\nenhancement means that he “waived” or merely “forfeited”\\nthis argument. Whether a defendant had reason to know of a\\ngun-buyer’s nefarious purpose is the kind of factual question\\nwe review for clear error if the issue is preserved. United States\\nv. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918 (7th Cir. 2001). But the even more\\ndeferential standard of plain-error review applies when an\\nobjection has been forfeited, and no review is available when\\nit has been waived. United States v. Oliver, 873 F.3d 601, 607\\n(7th Cir. 2017). An issue is waived when a defendant inten-\\ntionally relinquishes a known right; it is merely forfeited\\nwhen a defendant neglects to timely object. Id.\\n Here, the better view is that Moody forfeited rather than\\nwaived the objection. “The touchstone of waiver is a knowing\\nand intentional decision.” United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406\\nF.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2005). If the government cannot proffer\\nany strategic justification for a defendant’s omission, we will\\npresume an inadvertent forfeiture rather than an intentional\\nrelinquishment. Oliver, 873 F.3d at 607; cf. United States v.\\nYoung, 908 F.3d 241, 246–47 (7th Cir. 2018). No one has pro-\\nposed a strategic reason for Moody to have bypassed a chal-\\nlenge to a four-level enhancement. Thus, the claim is forfeited,\\nand we will review the district court’s decision for plain-error.\\nOliver, 873 F.3d at 607.\\n Under the plain-error standard, Moody must show that\\nthe error is not subject to reasonable dispute, that it affected\\nhis substantial rights, and that it diminished the fairness, in-\\ntegrity, or reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id.; Molina-\\nMartinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016); Fed. R.\\nCrim. P. 52(b). Although that standard is demanding, Moody\\nmeets it.\\n\\f6 No. 18-1837\\n\\n U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) directs a court to increase a defend-\\nant’s offense level by four for the “trafficking” of firearms. As\\nrelevant here, this means that the defendant “knew or had\\nreason to believe” that, for at least two guns, the recipient in-\\ntended to use the weapon in a further crime or was already a\\nperson prohibited, by federal law on specified grounds, from\\npossessing guns. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A). A “person prohib-\\nited” is narrowly defined as someone “whose possession or\\nreceipt of the firearm would be unlawful.” Id. Such a person\\n“(i) has a prior conviction for a crime of violence, a controlled\\nsubstance offense, or a misdemeanor crime of domestic vio-\\nlence; or (ii) at the time of the offense was under a criminal justice\\nsentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, im-\\nprisonment, work release, or escape status.” Id. at n.13(B) (em-\\nphasis added). The government bears the burden of proving\\nby a preponderance of the evidence that this enhancement is\\nwarranted. United States v. Johnson, 743 F.3d 196, 201 (7th Cir.\\n2014).\\n Moody attacks as impermissibly speculative the district\\ncourt’s conclusion that he had reason to believe that his buy-\\ners were barred from gun possession or that they intended to\\nuse the guns in crimes. In his view, the court assumed that the\\ncallers had heard about the train theft and were seeking to\\nbuy guns that they knew were stolen. And from that premise,\\nthe court inferred that the callers planned to use these guns in\\nother crimes, and, further, that Moody had reason to know it.\\nThe PSR and sentencing memoranda, meanwhile, offered no\\nsubstantiation for this chain of inferences.\\n The government counters that while Moody did not know\\nhis buyers’ identities, he surely knew that they were in the\\nmarket for stolen guns. Common sense, the government adds,\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 7\\n\\nwould say that few, if any, of these 13 anonymous buyers of\\nstolen guns would be permitted by federal law to possess\\nguns generally.\\n But the only evidence that the government offered on this\\npoint is Moody’s remark that he sold his share of the guns to\\n“different people who heard about it.” But what “it” refers to\\nis impossible to discern from the record. “It” might refer to\\nthe train heist, or “it” might refer to a bunch of guns (which\\nmay or may not be stolen) available for an off-the-books sale.\\nIf “it” merely refers to a load of guns for sale, then Moody’s\\nstatement simply establishes that he possessed stolen fire-\\narms. But that criminal act is already accounted for by his con-\\nviction for possessing a stolen firearm and does not justify the\\nenhancement. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). And the anonymous\\nparticipants’ interest in off-the-books gun sales might have\\ngiven Moody reason to believe that their purchases were un-\\nlawful, but not that their possession or use of the guns is un-\\nlawful. As Moody emphasizes, those who purchase guns un-\\nlawfully do not necessarily fall into the prohibited category\\ndefined by U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). For example, Lori Shelton,\\na lawful gun-owner identified in a codefendant’s sentencing\\nrecord, bought firearms from the heist. Shelton carried a valid\\nfirearm license and intended to give the guns to her adult chil-\\ndren once they, too, obtained licenses. The government cor-\\nrectly notes that Shelton’s intentional purchase of stolen prop-\\nerty was itself a crime in Illinois, see 720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4), but\\nthis did not make her a prohibited person under U.S.S.G. §\\n2K2.1 n.13(B).\\n Moody’s case thus stands in contrast to those in which the\\nseller knew something more about the buyers than that they\\nwere in the market for a gun. See, e.g., United States v.\\n\\f8 No. 18-1837\\n\\nRodriguez, 884 F.3d 679, 679–81 (7th Cir. 2018) (upholding en-\\nhancement where defendant and recipient discussed using\\nguns unlawfully); United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\\n(7th Cir. 2001) (reasoning that it would be “naïve” to conclude\\nthat Jemison had no reason to think guns he sold to a gang\\nwould be used to commit other felonies; “the public [is] not\\nblissfully ignorant of the connection between criminal vio-\\nlence and street gangs”). Indeed, Moody’s case also stands in\\ncontrast to that of his codefendants because in their case, the\\ngovernment introduced evidence that they knew specific\\nbuyers were prohibited persons.2 His case is more like United\\nStates v. Green, 360 F. App’x. 521, 522–25 (5th Cir. 2010) (non-\\nprecedential disposition), in which the Fifth Circuit rejected\\nthe enhancement for a defendant who smuggled five guns to\\ntwo people in Mexico. The enhancement was based on the\\ndistrict court’s supposition that guns in Mexico are predomi-\\nnantly used by drug-trafficking organizations. The Fifth Cir-\\ncuit held that this supposition was too big a leap. Id. at 525.\\n In short, the government’s evidence that Moody sold guns\\nto “different people who heard about it” is an insufficient ba-\\nsis for concluding that Moody sold guns to 2 or more people\\nwho satisfied the narrow criteria of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A).\\nIn concluding otherwise, the district court relied on a series of\\ninferences that were plainly too speculative to support a\\n\\n\\n 2 We might feel differently about this case if the government had pre-\\nsented more evidence (e.g., if the government had shown that Moody’s\\nbuyers were connected to him and his train heist). But it is not clear from\\nthe record—not even the presentence investigation report or the govern-\\nment’s sentencing memo—what Moody knew or had reason to know\\nabout who his buyers were or why they wanted guns, beyond his admis-\\nsion that his callers had “heard about it.”\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 9\\n\\nfinding by a preponderance of the evidence. We therefore\\nagree with Moody that the enhancement was plainly im-\\nproper.\\n In so holding, we are mindful that our precedents allow a\\ndistrict court great leeway to make commonsense inferences.\\nSee, e.g., United States v. Gilmore, 60 F.3d 392, 393–94 (7th Cir.\\n1995); see also United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\\n(7th Cir. 2001). In Gilmore, we held that a district court did not\\nerr by inferring that the defendant had reason to believe the\\nguns he “lost” would be used unlawfully, even though the\\nonly evidence was that one of the guns was found at a crime\\nscene and Gilmore (the original gunowner) did not know the\\nidentities of the new owners. 60 F.3d at 394. But in Moody’s\\ncase, no such inference is available. Although 17 of the crew’s\\n111 firearms were found at crime scenes, no evidence ties any\\nof the guns found at crime scenes to those sold by Moody.\\nBecause the inferential leap required by common sense is too\\ngreat here, the government has not met its burden of proof.\\n Of course, this error is not reversible simply because it is\\nplain—we must also conclude that it affected Moody’s sub-\\nstantial rights and diminished the fairness, integrity, or repu-\\ntation of the judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has re-\\npeatedly emphasized that when an unpreserved guideline er-\\nror is plain, it typically affects both fundamental rights and\\nfairness by setting an incorrect range for the probable sen-\\ntence. See generally Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.\\n1338 (2016); Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897\\n(2018). That is true here. The district court gave no indication\\nthat it chose a sentence “irrespective of the Guidelines range.”\\nMolina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. at 1346. And without the enhance-\\nment, Moody’s advisory Guidelines range would drop from\\n\\f10 No. 18-1837\\n\\n121–151 months to 78–97 months. Because the district court’s\\ncurrent 93-month sentence was designed to fall below the\\nrange the judge had calculated, we cannot be confident that\\nthe court would have been unwilling to go even lower.\\n None of this is to say that Moody is assured a lighter sen-\\ntence on remand. Perhaps a revised PSR or other evidence\\nwill cure any ambiguity. And even if the gun-trafficking\\nguideline does not apply, the district court may consider\\nwhether, as a matter of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3553(a), Moody’s blindness to his buyers’ identities makes it\\nreasonable to refrain from going any lower. These possibili-\\nties are for the district court to consider in the first instance.\\n III.\\n The judgment of the district court is VACATED and\\nREMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this de-\\ncision.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":669,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588441,"string":"4,588,441"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Travis Vaccaro"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1753"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 18‐1753 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nTRAVIS S. VACCARO, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Eastern District of Wisconsin. \\n No. 17‐CR‐84‐JPS — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Travis Vaccaro entered a condi‐\\ntional guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. \\n§ 922(g), preserving his right to appeal the denial of his mo‐\\ntion to suppress the gun. Vaccaro contests both the pat‐down \\nsearch that occurred seconds after police officers pulled over \\nhis car and the search of the car that yielded the gun. The pat‐\\ndown was lawful under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The \\n\\f2 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nsweep of the car, which the district court upheld under Mich‐\\nigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), is a closer call, but we con‐\\nclude that it too was permissible. Accordingly, we affirm. \\n Our summary of the facts is taken from an evidentiary \\nhearing on Vaccaro’s motion to suppress. Milwaukee police \\nofficers Aaron Frantal and Matthew Tracy stopped Vaccaro \\nfor running a red light. Officer Frantal testified that Vaccaro \\nstopped his car and made a “very ferocious move” by “bend‐\\ning at the waist.” Vaccaro then leaned toward the passenger \\nseat and “made another aggressive move with his entire top \\ntorso and both arms into the back seat of the vehicle.” Officer \\nTracy added that he saw Vaccaro “double over bending at the \\nwaist” and then reach toward the passenger side of the car. \\nOfficer Frantal testified that Vaccaro’s movements took under \\nfive seconds. Afraid that Vaccaro might be trying to “gain con‐\\ntrol of something from the back seat,” Officer Frantal drew his \\ngun and ordered Vaccaro out of his car. The officers immedi‐\\nately handcuffed Vaccaro, and Officer Frantal patted him \\ndown. \\n Meanwhile, Officer Tracy asked Vaccaro questions about \\nhis movements. Vaccaro expressed frustration to the officers \\nand mentioned that “people are trying to kill me.” Vaccaro \\nalso said that he merely “took [his] coat off” when he pulled \\nover. After saying that he was going to search the car, Officer \\nTracy asked Vaccaro seven times whether there was a gun in \\nthe car. Vaccaro responded once to reiterate that someone was \\ntrying to kill him and another time to say “I don’t have any‐\\nthing.” Officer Tracy added that Vaccaro appeared to be “ex‐\\ntremely nervous” and in a “real amped‐up state,” which con‐\\ntributed to the officer’s belief that Vaccaro was under the in‐\\nfluence of drugs. \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 3 \\n\\n As Officer Tracy questioned Vaccaro, Officer Frantal \\nfound a GPS monitor on Vaccaro’s ankle. Vaccaro confirmed \\nthat he was on supervision for “false imprisonment,” which \\nthe officers understood to be a felony. Officer Frantal did not \\ndiscover a weapon during the frisk. But both officers testified \\nthat they noticed a rifle case in the backseat. Neither officer \\nsaid anything, they testified, for fear of their safety; they did \\nnot want to alert an “agitated” Vaccaro that they had seen the \\ncase. \\n The officers then locked Vaccaro, still handcuffed, in the \\nbackseat of their squad car. Officer Frantal testified that Vac‐\\ncaro “did not appear to be fully stable” as he was led to the \\ncar. Officer Frantal called in the traffic violation to dispatch, \\nwhich drew back‐up officers to the scene. \\n Meanwhile, Officer Tracy returned to Vaccaro’s car and \\nbegan searching the front seats. Officer Frantal then ap‐\\nproached the vehicle. He soon remarked that he saw a rifle \\ncase in the backseat. The officers then removed a coat on top \\nof the rifle case and eventually confirmed that a rifle was in‐\\nside it. \\n The magistrate judge recommended that the district court \\ndeny Vaccaro’s motion to suppress. She credited the officers’ \\ntestimony that Vaccaro had made furtive movements because \\nVaccaro had admitted to taking off his jacket; therefore, she \\nsaid, the officers had reasonable suspicion to frisk Vaccaro for \\nweapons. But she discredited the officers’ testimony that they \\nhad seen a rifle case in the back of Vaccaro’s car before locking \\nhim in the squad car. The legality of the search therefore de‐\\npended on whether Vaccaro’s furtive gestures provided the \\nofficers with reasonable suspicion to search the passenger \\n\\f4 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\ncompartment of the car in addition to Vaccaro’s person. She \\nconcluded that they did. \\n Vaccaro objected to the magistrate judge’s report and rec‐\\nommendation, arguing that the immediate frisk was not jus‐\\ntified by reasonable suspicion and that the search of the car \\nwas not a lawful protective search under Long. The govern‐\\nment argued that both the frisk and car search were reasona‐\\nble. Vaccaro’s furtive movements justified the pat‐down \\nsearch, the government said, and locking Vaccaro in the squad \\ncar before the vehicle search enabled the officers to “avert[] a \\ncalamitous and explosive event.” \\n The district judge sided with the government and denied \\nVaccaro’s motion to suppress. The judge accepted the magis‐\\ntrate judge’s findings of fact and discredited the officers’ tes‐\\ntimony that they had observed the rifle case in the backseat \\nbefore they searched the car. But Vaccaro’s furtive movements \\nprovided the officers with reasonable suspicion that he had \\n“potentially armed himself or concealed a firearm,” which \\nwarranted a protective frisk. The district judge also concluded \\nthat the vehicle search was reasonable under Long. Although \\nVaccaro was handcuffed and locked in a squad car during the \\nsearch, he was not under arrest and could still be “dangerous” \\nor gain “immediate access” to weapons. While the officers’ \\n“stated bases for their suspicion of dangerousness … are \\nfew,” the judge observed, he was “constrained” to find that \\nthe officers had reasonable suspicion that Vaccaro was dan‐\\ngerous based on his “furtive movements,” the “relatively \\nlate” time of the stop, and the officers’ belief that Vaccaro was \\non drugs. Citing United States v. Arnold, 388 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. \\n2004), the judge further explained that, had “the traffic stop \\nresulted only in the issuance of a citation for running a red \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 5 \\n\\nlight, Vaccaro would have been permitted to re‐enter his ve‐\\nhicle.” \\n Vaccaro then conditionally pleaded guilty to knowingly \\npossessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He ex‐\\npressly reserved the right to challenge the denial of his motion \\nto suppress. \\n On appeal, Vaccaro renews his challenge to the pat‐down \\nfrisk and to the search of his car. We review the district court’s \\nunderlying factual findings for clear error, and we review de \\nnovo the district court’s legal conclusions, including its deter‐\\nminations of reasonable suspicion. See Ornelas v. United States, \\n517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Ruiz, 785 F.3d 1134, \\n1140–41 (7th Cir. 2015). \\n Vaccaro contends that the district court mistakenly cred‐\\nited the officers’ testimony that he made furtive movements \\nbefore exiting his car. This argument can be dispatched \\nquickly. Vaccaro protests that because the officers lied about \\nseeing the rifle case before locking him in the squad car, they \\nwere also incorrect (or untruthful) about his movements. But \\nthe district court may credit all or part of a witness’s testi‐\\nmony, especially when there is more than one permissible \\nreading of the evidence. See United States v. McGraw, 571 F.3d \\n624, 629 (7th Cir. 2009). And although Vaccaro maintains that \\nthe officers’ views through the rear window were obstructed \\nby the headrests and a temporary license card, the judge cred‐\\nited the officers’ testimony about the movements they ob‐\\nserved, bolstered by Vaccaro’s own admission that he took off \\nhis coat when he was pulled over. In light of Vaccaro’s admis‐\\nsion that he was indeed moving around, we are not left with \\na “definite and firm conviction” that the district court mistak‐\\nenly credited the officers’ testimony. See United States v. \\n\\f6 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nThurman, 889 F.3d 356, 363–64 (7th Cir. 2018) (finding no clear \\nerror when court faced with “he said versus they said” situa‐\\ntion). \\n Because Vaccaro cannot show that the district court clearly \\nerred in finding that he made furtive movements before leav‐\\ning the car, he cannot show that the pat‐down was unlawful. \\nVaccaro’s movements, including bending forward at the waist \\nand reaching toward the passenger and rear seats, reasonably \\nsuggested that he could be reaching for or concealing a \\nweapon. See United States v. Evans, 994 F.2d 317, 321 (7th Cir. \\n1993); United States v. Denney, 771 F.2d 318, 322 (7th Cir. 1985). \\nMoreover, Vaccaro appeared to be “having difficulty with \\nsomething that the officer could not see,” so the officers had \\nreasonable suspicion to order him out of the car and to per‐\\nform a pat‐down search. See United States v. Hendricks, 319 \\nF.3d 993, 1004 (7th Cir. 2003). Vaccaro offered an innocent ex‐\\nplanation for his movements, but an officer need not be abso‐\\nlutely certain that a suspect is armed before conducting a pro‐\\ntective pat‐down. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27; United States v. Ford, \\n872 F.3d 412, 415 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n Vaccaro also protests that the frisk was unreasonable be‐\\ncause the officers handcuffed him unnecessarily. Handcuffing \\na suspect during a pat‐down search for weapons should be \\nthe rare case. See United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088, 1094 (7th \\nCir. 1993). But there is “a limited set of circumstances in which \\nhandcuffs are appropriate without converting a Terry stop \\ninto a full arrest,” and “[c]hief among them is officer safety \\nand the possibility of the presence of a weapon.” Howell v. \\nSmith, 853 F.3d 892, 898 (7th Cir. 2017). Based on the officers’ \\nconcern that Vaccaro might have armed himself with a \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 7 \\n\\nweapon when they observed his “aggressive” movements, \\nhandcuffing him to conduct the frisk was reasonable. \\n Vaccaro next argues that the district court should have \\nsuppressed the rifle because the officers discovered it during \\nan unlawful search of his car. The government asserts that \\nMichigan v. Long justified the search. The Long exception to the \\nwarrant requirement permits the police to search a vehicle \\nwhen there are “genuine safety or evidentiary concerns.” Ar‐\\nizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 347 (2009). Long holds: “[T]he \\nsearch of the passenger compartment of an automobile, lim‐\\nited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hid‐\\nden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable \\nbelief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken to‐\\ngether with the rational inferences from those facts, reasona‐\\nbly warrant’ the officers in believing that the suspect is dan‐\\ngerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weap‐\\nons.” 463 U.S. at 1049–50 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21). In ap‐\\nplying this test, the key question is whether the search was \\nreasonable. See United States v. Correa, 908 F.3d 208, 217 (7th \\nCir. 2018). Long searches are grounded in concern for officer \\nsafety, see 463 U.S. at 1050, so if that concern is not present, \\nLong does not justify the search. See Gant, 556 U.S. at 338–39 \\n(discussing how searches incident to arrest are not reasonable \\nif concerns underlying exception to warrant requirement are \\nabsent). \\n Long’s first prong is satisfied here because the officers had \\nreasonable suspicion to believe that Vaccaro was dangerous \\nat the time they searched the car. In addition to Vaccaro’s fur‐\\ntive movements, the officers suspected that Vaccaro was un‐\\nder the influence of drugs, which gave them greater reason to \\nfear for their safety. See Long, 463 U.S. at 1050; United States v. \\n\\f8 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nKenerson, 585 F.3d 389, 392 (7th Cir. 2009). The officers also \\ndiscovered that Vaccaro was on probation for “false impris‐\\nonment,” and prior criminal activity is one factor that can con‐\\ntribute to reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Johnson, \\n427 F.3d 1053, 1057 (7th Cir. 2005). \\n The second prong of the Long inquiry requires the govern‐\\nment to establish that the officers reasonably suspected that \\nVaccaro could gain “immediate control” of weapons in the ve‐\\nhicle. See 463 U.S. at 1049–50; United States v. Stewart, 902 F.3d \\n664, 674 (7th Cir. 2018). Vaccaro claims that he could not have \\nimmediately obtained weapons because he was handcuffed \\nand locked in the back of a squad car. He insists that this case \\nis controlled by Arizona v. Gant, in which the Supreme Court \\nheld that officer‐safety concerns did not justify a search inci‐\\ndent to the arrest of a driver who had been handcuffed and \\nlocked in the back seat of a squad car. 556 U.S. at 335. The \\ngovernment, on the other hand, contends that Gant doesn’t \\ngovern because Vaccaro wasn’t arrested. When a suspect is \\nmerely detained, the government argues, United States v. Ar‐\\nnold controls the Long inquiry. 388 F.3d 237, 241 (7th Cir. \\n2004). \\n In Arnold, which we decided before Gant, the motorist \\nmade furtive movements upon being stopped by police. 388 \\nF.3d at 238. The officer asked him to step out of the vehicle, \\npatted him down, and “placed [the motorist] in the back seat \\nof the patrol car so that he could ensure that the traffic stop \\nwas completed safely.” Id. The officer then decided to have \\nthe car towed because the defendant had been driving with a \\nlearner’s permit without a licensed driver. Id. Before towing \\nthe vehicle, however, the officer searched it and discovered a \\nfirearm. Id. at 238–39. We held that officer‐safety concerns \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 9 \\n\\njustified the search under Long. Id. at 241. This was a traffic \\nstop, not an arrest, and the officer “may have permitted [the \\nmotorist] to gather items from the car before leaving the scene \\neven if the officer would not have permitted him to drive the \\nvehicle.” Id. We also noted that while the motorist was in the \\nback seat of the squad car, he was not handcuffed and there‐\\nfore “could have broken away from [the officer’s] control.” Id. \\n At oral argument, we asked the government whether Gant \\nlimited or overruled Arnold, and it maintained that Arnold is \\nstill good law. We agree. In Arnold, it was reasonable to be‐\\nlieve that the defendant, who was not under arrest, could \\nhave regained access to his vehicle. See id. at 238, 241; see also \\nGant, 556 U.S. at 352 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“In the no‐arrest \\ncase, the possibility of access to weapons in the vehicle always \\nexists, since the driver or passenger will be allowed to return \\nto the vehicle when the interrogation is completed.”). In Gant, \\nthe opposite was true: the defendants were not going to return \\nto the vehicle because they were arrested, handcuffed, and \\nlocked in squad cars. See 556 U.S. at 336–37, 344. The cases \\ntherefore do not conflict: Arnold applies to Terry stops; Gant \\napplies to arrests. \\n Thus, if Vaccaro had been under arrest, Gant would con‐\\ntrol. And if Vaccaro contended that he had been under arrest, \\nwe would face the difficult task of determining whether this \\nTerry stop became an arrest. See, e.g., United States v. Bullock, \\n632 F.3d 1004, 1016–18 (7th Cir. 2011). But Vaccaro does not \\nargue that the officers arrested him. To the contrary, he con‐\\nceded at oral argument that he had been subjected to a Terry \\nstop, not an arrest, and that he would have been allowed back \\nto his vehicle at the conclusion of his brief detention if the \\n\\f10 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nofficers had found no contraband.1 Vaccaro’s concession dic‐\\ntates the disposition of this case. By admitting that he would \\nhave been allowed to return to his car, Vaccaro conceded that \\nhe could have gained “immediate control of weapons” inside \\nthe vehicle. The search was therefore lawful under Long. 463 \\nU.S. at 1049; Arnold, 388 F.3d at 241. \\n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. \\n \\n \\n \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n \\n1 Vaccaro also conceded that he did not argue in the district court that his \\n\\ndetention amounted to an arrest, rather than a Terry stop.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4365694/\", \"author_raw\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"RIPPLE\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588441/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Travis Vaccaro\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 18‐1753 \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \n v. \n\nTRAVIS S. VACCARO, \n Defendant‐Appellant. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Eastern District of Wisconsin. \n No. 17‐CR‐84‐JPS — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit \nJudges. \n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Travis Vaccaro entered a condi‐\ntional guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. \n§ 922(g), preserving his right to appeal the denial of his mo‐\ntion to suppress the gun. Vaccaro contests both the pat‐down \nsearch that occurred seconds after police officers pulled over \nhis car and the search of the car that yielded the gun. The pat‐\ndown was lawful under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The \n\f2 No. 18‐1753 \n\nsweep of the car, which the district court upheld under Mich‐\nigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), is a closer call, but we con‐\nclude that it too was permissible. Accordingly, we affirm. \n Our summary of the facts is taken from an evidentiary \nhearing on Vaccaro’s motion to suppress. Milwaukee police \nofficers Aaron Frantal and Matthew Tracy stopped Vaccaro \nfor running a red light. Officer Frantal testified that Vaccaro \nstopped his car and made a “very ferocious move” by “bend‐\ning at the waist.” Vaccaro then leaned toward the passenger \nseat and “made another aggressive move with his entire top \ntorso and both arms into the back seat of the vehicle.” Officer \nTracy added that he saw Vaccaro “double over bending at the \nwaist” and then reach toward the passenger side of the car. \nOfficer Frantal testified that Vaccaro’s movements took under \nfive seconds. Afraid that Vaccaro might be trying to “gain con‐\ntrol of something from the back seat,” Officer Frantal drew his \ngun and ordered Vaccaro out of his car. The officers immedi‐\nately handcuffed Vaccaro, and Officer Frantal patted him \ndown. \n Meanwhile, Officer Tracy asked Vaccaro questions about \nhis movements. Vaccaro expressed frustration to the officers \nand mentioned that “people are trying to kill me.” Vaccaro \nalso said that he merely “took [his] coat off” when he pulled \nover. After saying that he was going to search the car, Officer \nTracy asked Vaccaro seven times whether there was a gun in \nthe car. Vaccaro responded once to reiterate that someone was \ntrying to kill him and another time to say “I don’t have any‐\nthing.” Officer Tracy added that Vaccaro appeared to be “ex‐\ntremely nervous” and in a “real amped‐up state,” which con‐\ntributed to the officer’s belief that Vaccaro was under the in‐\nfluence of drugs. \n\fNo. 18‐1753 3 \n\n As Officer Tracy questioned Vaccaro, Officer Frantal \nfound a GPS monitor on Vaccaro’s ankle. Vaccaro confirmed \nthat he was on supervision for “false imprisonment,” which \nthe officers understood to be a felony. Officer Frantal did not \ndiscover a weapon during the frisk. But both officers testified \nthat they noticed a rifle case in the backseat. Neither officer \nsaid anything, they testified, for fear of their safety; they did \nnot want to alert an “agitated” Vaccaro that they had seen the \ncase. \n The officers then locked Vaccaro, still handcuffed, in the \nbackseat of their squad car. Officer Frantal testified that Vac‐\ncaro “did not appear to be fully stable” as he was led to the \ncar. Officer Frantal called in the traffic violation to dispatch, \nwhich drew back‐up officers to the scene. \n Meanwhile, Officer Tracy returned to Vaccaro’s car and \nbegan searching the front seats. Officer Frantal then ap‐\nproached the vehicle. He soon remarked that he saw a rifle \ncase in the backseat. The officers then removed a coat on top \nof the rifle case and eventually confirmed that a rifle was in‐\nside it. \n The magistrate judge recommended that the district court \ndeny Vaccaro’s motion to suppress. She credited the officers’ \ntestimony that Vaccaro had made furtive movements because \nVaccaro had admitted to taking off his jacket; therefore, she \nsaid, the officers had reasonable suspicion to frisk Vaccaro for \nweapons. But she discredited the officers’ testimony that they \nhad seen a rifle case in the back of Vaccaro’s car before locking \nhim in the squad car. The legality of the search therefore de‐\npended on whether Vaccaro’s furtive gestures provided the \nofficers with reasonable suspicion to search the passenger \n\f4 No. 18‐1753 \n\ncompartment of the car in addition to Vaccaro’s person. She \nconcluded that they did. \n Vaccaro objected to the magistrate judge’s report and rec‐\nommendation, arguing that the immediate frisk was not jus‐\ntified by reasonable suspicion and that the search of the car \nwas not a lawful protective search under Long. The govern‐\nment argued that both the frisk and car search were reasona‐\nble. Vaccaro’s furtive movements justified the pat‐down \nsearch, the government said, and locking Vaccaro in the squad \ncar before the vehicle search enabled the officers to “avert[] a \ncalamitous and explosive event.” \n The district judge sided with the government and denied \nVaccaro’s motion to suppress. The judge accepted the magis‐\ntrate judge’s findings of fact and discredited the officers’ tes‐\ntimony that they had observed the rifle case in the backseat \nbefore they searched the car. But Vaccaro’s furtive movements \nprovided the officers with reasonable suspicion that he had \n“potentially armed himself or concealed a firearm,” which \nwarranted a protective frisk. The district judge also concluded \nthat the vehicle search was reasonable under Long. Although \nVaccaro was handcuffed and locked in a squad car during the \nsearch, he was not under arrest and could still be “dangerous” \nor gain “immediate access” to weapons. While the officers’ \n“stated bases for their suspicion of dangerousness … are \nfew,” the judge observed, he was “constrained” to find that \nthe officers had reasonable suspicion that Vaccaro was dan‐\ngerous based on his “furtive movements,” the “relatively \nlate” time of the stop, and the officers’ belief that Vaccaro was \non drugs. Citing United States v. Arnold, 388 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. \n2004), the judge further explained that, had “the traffic stop \nresulted only in the issuance of a citation for running a red \n\fNo. 18‐1753 5 \n\nlight, Vaccaro would have been permitted to re‐enter his ve‐\nhicle.” \n Vaccaro then conditionally pleaded guilty to knowingly \npossessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He ex‐\npressly reserved the right to challenge the denial of his motion \nto suppress. \n On appeal, Vaccaro renews his challenge to the pat‐down \nfrisk and to the search of his car. We review the district court’s \nunderlying factual findings for clear error, and we review de \nnovo the district court’s legal conclusions, including its deter‐\nminations of reasonable suspicion. See Ornelas v. United States, \n517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Ruiz, 785 F.3d 1134, \n1140–41 (7th Cir. 2015). \n Vaccaro contends that the district court mistakenly cred‐\nited the officers’ testimony that he made furtive movements \nbefore exiting his car. This argument can be dispatched \nquickly. Vaccaro protests that because the officers lied about \nseeing the rifle case before locking him in the squad car, they \nwere also incorrect (or untruthful) about his movements. But \nthe district court may credit all or part of a witness’s testi‐\nmony, especially when there is more than one permissible \nreading of the evidence. See United States v. McGraw, 571 F.3d \n624, 629 (7th Cir. 2009). And although Vaccaro maintains that \nthe officers’ views through the rear window were obstructed \nby the headrests and a temporary license card, the judge cred‐\nited the officers’ testimony about the movements they ob‐\nserved, bolstered by Vaccaro’s own admission that he took off \nhis coat when he was pulled over. In light of Vaccaro’s admis‐\nsion that he was indeed moving around, we are not left with \na “definite and firm conviction” that the district court mistak‐\nenly credited the officers’ testimony. See United States v. \n\f6 No. 18‐1753 \n\nThurman, 889 F.3d 356, 363–64 (7th Cir. 2018) (finding no clear \nerror when court faced with “he said versus they said” situa‐\ntion). \n Because Vaccaro cannot show that the district court clearly \nerred in finding that he made furtive movements before leav‐\ning the car, he cannot show that the pat‐down was unlawful. \nVaccaro’s movements, including bending forward at the waist \nand reaching toward the passenger and rear seats, reasonably \nsuggested that he could be reaching for or concealing a \nweapon. See United States v. Evans, 994 F.2d 317, 321 (7th Cir. \n1993); United States v. Denney, 771 F.2d 318, 322 (7th Cir. 1985). \nMoreover, Vaccaro appeared to be “having difficulty with \nsomething that the officer could not see,” so the officers had \nreasonable suspicion to order him out of the car and to per‐\nform a pat‐down search. See United States v. Hendricks, 319 \nF.3d 993, 1004 (7th Cir. 2003). Vaccaro offered an innocent ex‐\nplanation for his movements, but an officer need not be abso‐\nlutely certain that a suspect is armed before conducting a pro‐\ntective pat‐down. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27; United States v. Ford, \n872 F.3d 412, 415 (7th Cir. 2017). \n Vaccaro also protests that the frisk was unreasonable be‐\ncause the officers handcuffed him unnecessarily. Handcuffing \na suspect during a pat‐down search for weapons should be \nthe rare case. See United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088, 1094 (7th \nCir. 1993). But there is “a limited set of circumstances in which \nhandcuffs are appropriate without converting a Terry stop \ninto a full arrest,” and “[c]hief among them is officer safety \nand the possibility of the presence of a weapon.” Howell v. \nSmith, 853 F.3d 892, 898 (7th Cir. 2017). Based on the officers’ \nconcern that Vaccaro might have armed himself with a \n\fNo. 18‐1753 7 \n\nweapon when they observed his “aggressive” movements, \nhandcuffing him to conduct the frisk was reasonable. \n Vaccaro next argues that the district court should have \nsuppressed the rifle because the officers discovered it during \nan unlawful search of his car. The government asserts that \nMichigan v. Long justified the search. The Long exception to the \nwarrant requirement permits the police to search a vehicle \nwhen there are “genuine safety or evidentiary concerns.” Ar‐\nizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 347 (2009). Long holds: “[T]he \nsearch of the passenger compartment of an automobile, lim‐\nited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hid‐\nden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable \nbelief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken to‐\ngether with the rational inferences from those facts, reasona‐\nbly warrant’ the officers in believing that the suspect is dan‐\ngerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weap‐\nons.” 463 U.S. at 1049–50 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21). In ap‐\nplying this test, the key question is whether the search was \nreasonable. See United States v. Correa, 908 F.3d 208, 217 (7th \nCir. 2018). Long searches are grounded in concern for officer \nsafety, see 463 U.S. at 1050, so if that concern is not present, \nLong does not justify the search. See Gant, 556 U.S. at 338–39 \n(discussing how searches incident to arrest are not reasonable \nif concerns underlying exception to warrant requirement are \nabsent). \n Long’s first prong is satisfied here because the officers had \nreasonable suspicion to believe that Vaccaro was dangerous \nat the time they searched the car. In addition to Vaccaro’s fur‐\ntive movements, the officers suspected that Vaccaro was un‐\nder the influence of drugs, which gave them greater reason to \nfear for their safety. See Long, 463 U.S. at 1050; United States v. \n\f8 No. 18‐1753 \n\nKenerson, 585 F.3d 389, 392 (7th Cir. 2009). The officers also \ndiscovered that Vaccaro was on probation for “false impris‐\nonment,” and prior criminal activity is one factor that can con‐\ntribute to reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Johnson, \n427 F.3d 1053, 1057 (7th Cir. 2005). \n The second prong of the Long inquiry requires the govern‐\nment to establish that the officers reasonably suspected that \nVaccaro could gain “immediate control” of weapons in the ve‐\nhicle. See 463 U.S. at 1049–50; United States v. Stewart, 902 F.3d \n664, 674 (7th Cir. 2018). Vaccaro claims that he could not have \nimmediately obtained weapons because he was handcuffed \nand locked in the back of a squad car. He insists that this case \nis controlled by Arizona v. Gant, in which the Supreme Court \nheld that officer‐safety concerns did not justify a search inci‐\ndent to the arrest of a driver who had been handcuffed and \nlocked in the back seat of a squad car. 556 U.S. at 335. The \ngovernment, on the other hand, contends that Gant doesn’t \ngovern because Vaccaro wasn’t arrested. When a suspect is \nmerely detained, the government argues, United States v. Ar‐\nnold controls the Long inquiry. 388 F.3d 237, 241 (7th Cir. \n2004). \n In Arnold, which we decided before Gant, the motorist \nmade furtive movements upon being stopped by police. 388 \nF.3d at 238. The officer asked him to step out of the vehicle, \npatted him down, and “placed [the motorist] in the back seat \nof the patrol car so that he could ensure that the traffic stop \nwas completed safely.” Id. The officer then decided to have \nthe car towed because the defendant had been driving with a \nlearner’s permit without a licensed driver. Id. Before towing \nthe vehicle, however, the officer searched it and discovered a \nfirearm. Id. at 238–39. We held that officer‐safety concerns \n\fNo. 18‐1753 9 \n\njustified the search under Long. Id. at 241. This was a traffic \nstop, not an arrest, and the officer “may have permitted [the \nmotorist] to gather items from the car before leaving the scene \neven if the officer would not have permitted him to drive the \nvehicle.” Id. We also noted that while the motorist was in the \nback seat of the squad car, he was not handcuffed and there‐\nfore “could have broken away from [the officer’s] control.” Id. \n At oral argument, we asked the government whether Gant \nlimited or overruled Arnold, and it maintained that Arnold is \nstill good law. We agree. In Arnold, it was reasonable to be‐\nlieve that the defendant, who was not under arrest, could \nhave regained access to his vehicle. See id. at 238, 241; see also \nGant, 556 U.S. at 352 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“In the no‐arrest \ncase, the possibility of access to weapons in the vehicle always \nexists, since the driver or passenger will be allowed to return \nto the vehicle when the interrogation is completed.”). In Gant, \nthe opposite was true: the defendants were not going to return \nto the vehicle because they were arrested, handcuffed, and \nlocked in squad cars. See 556 U.S. at 336–37, 344. The cases \ntherefore do not conflict: Arnold applies to Terry stops; Gant \napplies to arrests. \n Thus, if Vaccaro had been under arrest, Gant would con‐\ntrol. And if Vaccaro contended that he had been under arrest, \nwe would face the difficult task of determining whether this \nTerry stop became an arrest. See, e.g., United States v. Bullock, \n632 F.3d 1004, 1016–18 (7th Cir. 2011). But Vaccaro does not \nargue that the officers arrested him. To the contrary, he con‐\nceded at oral argument that he had been subjected to a Terry \nstop, not an arrest, and that he would have been allowed back \nto his vehicle at the conclusion of his brief detention if the \n\f10 No. 18‐1753 \n\nofficers had found no contraband.1 Vaccaro’s concession dic‐\ntates the disposition of this case. By admitting that he would \nhave been allowed to return to his car, Vaccaro conceded that \nhe could have gained “immediate control of weapons” inside \nthe vehicle. The search was therefore lawful under Long. 463 \nU.S. at 1049; Arnold, 388 F.3d at 241. \n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n \n1 Vaccaro also conceded that he did not argue in the district court that his \n\ndetention amounted to an arrest, rather than a Terry stop.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Travis Vaccaro\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 18‐1753 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nTRAVIS S. VACCARO, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Eastern District of Wisconsin. \\n No. 17‐CR‐84‐JPS — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Travis Vaccaro entered a condi‐\\ntional guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. \\n§ 922(g), preserving his right to appeal the denial of his mo‐\\ntion to suppress the gun. Vaccaro contests both the pat‐down \\nsearch that occurred seconds after police officers pulled over \\nhis car and the search of the car that yielded the gun. The pat‐\\ndown was lawful under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The \\n\\f2 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nsweep of the car, which the district court upheld under Mich‐\\nigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), is a closer call, but we con‐\\nclude that it too was permissible. Accordingly, we affirm. \\n Our summary of the facts is taken from an evidentiary \\nhearing on Vaccaro’s motion to suppress. Milwaukee police \\nofficers Aaron Frantal and Matthew Tracy stopped Vaccaro \\nfor running a red light. Officer Frantal testified that Vaccaro \\nstopped his car and made a “very ferocious move” by “bend‐\\ning at the waist.” Vaccaro then leaned toward the passenger \\nseat and “made another aggressive move with his entire top \\ntorso and both arms into the back seat of the vehicle.” Officer \\nTracy added that he saw Vaccaro “double over bending at the \\nwaist” and then reach toward the passenger side of the car. \\nOfficer Frantal testified that Vaccaro’s movements took under \\nfive seconds. Afraid that Vaccaro might be trying to “gain con‐\\ntrol of something from the back seat,” Officer Frantal drew his \\ngun and ordered Vaccaro out of his car. The officers immedi‐\\nately handcuffed Vaccaro, and Officer Frantal patted him \\ndown. \\n Meanwhile, Officer Tracy asked Vaccaro questions about \\nhis movements. Vaccaro expressed frustration to the officers \\nand mentioned that “people are trying to kill me.” Vaccaro \\nalso said that he merely “took [his] coat off” when he pulled \\nover. After saying that he was going to search the car, Officer \\nTracy asked Vaccaro seven times whether there was a gun in \\nthe car. Vaccaro responded once to reiterate that someone was \\ntrying to kill him and another time to say “I don’t have any‐\\nthing.” Officer Tracy added that Vaccaro appeared to be “ex‐\\ntremely nervous” and in a “real amped‐up state,” which con‐\\ntributed to the officer’s belief that Vaccaro was under the in‐\\nfluence of drugs. \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 3 \\n\\n As Officer Tracy questioned Vaccaro, Officer Frantal \\nfound a GPS monitor on Vaccaro’s ankle. Vaccaro confirmed \\nthat he was on supervision for “false imprisonment,” which \\nthe officers understood to be a felony. Officer Frantal did not \\ndiscover a weapon during the frisk. But both officers testified \\nthat they noticed a rifle case in the backseat. Neither officer \\nsaid anything, they testified, for fear of their safety; they did \\nnot want to alert an “agitated” Vaccaro that they had seen the \\ncase. \\n The officers then locked Vaccaro, still handcuffed, in the \\nbackseat of their squad car. Officer Frantal testified that Vac‐\\ncaro “did not appear to be fully stable” as he was led to the \\ncar. Officer Frantal called in the traffic violation to dispatch, \\nwhich drew back‐up officers to the scene. \\n Meanwhile, Officer Tracy returned to Vaccaro’s car and \\nbegan searching the front seats. Officer Frantal then ap‐\\nproached the vehicle. He soon remarked that he saw a rifle \\ncase in the backseat. The officers then removed a coat on top \\nof the rifle case and eventually confirmed that a rifle was in‐\\nside it. \\n The magistrate judge recommended that the district court \\ndeny Vaccaro’s motion to suppress. She credited the officers’ \\ntestimony that Vaccaro had made furtive movements because \\nVaccaro had admitted to taking off his jacket; therefore, she \\nsaid, the officers had reasonable suspicion to frisk Vaccaro for \\nweapons. But she discredited the officers’ testimony that they \\nhad seen a rifle case in the back of Vaccaro’s car before locking \\nhim in the squad car. The legality of the search therefore de‐\\npended on whether Vaccaro’s furtive gestures provided the \\nofficers with reasonable suspicion to search the passenger \\n\\f4 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\ncompartment of the car in addition to Vaccaro’s person. She \\nconcluded that they did. \\n Vaccaro objected to the magistrate judge’s report and rec‐\\nommendation, arguing that the immediate frisk was not jus‐\\ntified by reasonable suspicion and that the search of the car \\nwas not a lawful protective search under Long. The govern‐\\nment argued that both the frisk and car search were reasona‐\\nble. Vaccaro’s furtive movements justified the pat‐down \\nsearch, the government said, and locking Vaccaro in the squad \\ncar before the vehicle search enabled the officers to “avert[] a \\ncalamitous and explosive event.” \\n The district judge sided with the government and denied \\nVaccaro’s motion to suppress. The judge accepted the magis‐\\ntrate judge’s findings of fact and discredited the officers’ tes‐\\ntimony that they had observed the rifle case in the backseat \\nbefore they searched the car. But Vaccaro’s furtive movements \\nprovided the officers with reasonable suspicion that he had \\n“potentially armed himself or concealed a firearm,” which \\nwarranted a protective frisk. The district judge also concluded \\nthat the vehicle search was reasonable under Long. Although \\nVaccaro was handcuffed and locked in a squad car during the \\nsearch, he was not under arrest and could still be “dangerous” \\nor gain “immediate access” to weapons. While the officers’ \\n“stated bases for their suspicion of dangerousness … are \\nfew,” the judge observed, he was “constrained” to find that \\nthe officers had reasonable suspicion that Vaccaro was dan‐\\ngerous based on his “furtive movements,” the “relatively \\nlate” time of the stop, and the officers’ belief that Vaccaro was \\non drugs. Citing United States v. Arnold, 388 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. \\n2004), the judge further explained that, had “the traffic stop \\nresulted only in the issuance of a citation for running a red \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 5 \\n\\nlight, Vaccaro would have been permitted to re‐enter his ve‐\\nhicle.” \\n Vaccaro then conditionally pleaded guilty to knowingly \\npossessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He ex‐\\npressly reserved the right to challenge the denial of his motion \\nto suppress. \\n On appeal, Vaccaro renews his challenge to the pat‐down \\nfrisk and to the search of his car. We review the district court’s \\nunderlying factual findings for clear error, and we review de \\nnovo the district court’s legal conclusions, including its deter‐\\nminations of reasonable suspicion. See Ornelas v. United States, \\n517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Ruiz, 785 F.3d 1134, \\n1140–41 (7th Cir. 2015). \\n Vaccaro contends that the district court mistakenly cred‐\\nited the officers’ testimony that he made furtive movements \\nbefore exiting his car. This argument can be dispatched \\nquickly. Vaccaro protests that because the officers lied about \\nseeing the rifle case before locking him in the squad car, they \\nwere also incorrect (or untruthful) about his movements. But \\nthe district court may credit all or part of a witness’s testi‐\\nmony, especially when there is more than one permissible \\nreading of the evidence. See United States v. McGraw, 571 F.3d \\n624, 629 (7th Cir. 2009). And although Vaccaro maintains that \\nthe officers’ views through the rear window were obstructed \\nby the headrests and a temporary license card, the judge cred‐\\nited the officers’ testimony about the movements they ob‐\\nserved, bolstered by Vaccaro’s own admission that he took off \\nhis coat when he was pulled over. In light of Vaccaro’s admis‐\\nsion that he was indeed moving around, we are not left with \\na “definite and firm conviction” that the district court mistak‐\\nenly credited the officers’ testimony. See United States v. \\n\\f6 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nThurman, 889 F.3d 356, 363–64 (7th Cir. 2018) (finding no clear \\nerror when court faced with “he said versus they said” situa‐\\ntion). \\n Because Vaccaro cannot show that the district court clearly \\nerred in finding that he made furtive movements before leav‐\\ning the car, he cannot show that the pat‐down was unlawful. \\nVaccaro’s movements, including bending forward at the waist \\nand reaching toward the passenger and rear seats, reasonably \\nsuggested that he could be reaching for or concealing a \\nweapon. See United States v. Evans, 994 F.2d 317, 321 (7th Cir. \\n1993); United States v. Denney, 771 F.2d 318, 322 (7th Cir. 1985). \\nMoreover, Vaccaro appeared to be “having difficulty with \\nsomething that the officer could not see,” so the officers had \\nreasonable suspicion to order him out of the car and to per‐\\nform a pat‐down search. See United States v. Hendricks, 319 \\nF.3d 993, 1004 (7th Cir. 2003). Vaccaro offered an innocent ex‐\\nplanation for his movements, but an officer need not be abso‐\\nlutely certain that a suspect is armed before conducting a pro‐\\ntective pat‐down. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27; United States v. Ford, \\n872 F.3d 412, 415 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n Vaccaro also protests that the frisk was unreasonable be‐\\ncause the officers handcuffed him unnecessarily. Handcuffing \\na suspect during a pat‐down search for weapons should be \\nthe rare case. See United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088, 1094 (7th \\nCir. 1993). But there is “a limited set of circumstances in which \\nhandcuffs are appropriate without converting a Terry stop \\ninto a full arrest,” and “[c]hief among them is officer safety \\nand the possibility of the presence of a weapon.” Howell v. \\nSmith, 853 F.3d 892, 898 (7th Cir. 2017). Based on the officers’ \\nconcern that Vaccaro might have armed himself with a \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 7 \\n\\nweapon when they observed his “aggressive” movements, \\nhandcuffing him to conduct the frisk was reasonable. \\n Vaccaro next argues that the district court should have \\nsuppressed the rifle because the officers discovered it during \\nan unlawful search of his car. The government asserts that \\nMichigan v. Long justified the search. The Long exception to the \\nwarrant requirement permits the police to search a vehicle \\nwhen there are “genuine safety or evidentiary concerns.” Ar‐\\nizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 347 (2009). Long holds: “[T]he \\nsearch of the passenger compartment of an automobile, lim‐\\nited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hid‐\\nden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable \\nbelief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken to‐\\ngether with the rational inferences from those facts, reasona‐\\nbly warrant’ the officers in believing that the suspect is dan‐\\ngerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weap‐\\nons.” 463 U.S. at 1049–50 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21). In ap‐\\nplying this test, the key question is whether the search was \\nreasonable. See United States v. Correa, 908 F.3d 208, 217 (7th \\nCir. 2018). Long searches are grounded in concern for officer \\nsafety, see 463 U.S. at 1050, so if that concern is not present, \\nLong does not justify the search. See Gant, 556 U.S. at 338–39 \\n(discussing how searches incident to arrest are not reasonable \\nif concerns underlying exception to warrant requirement are \\nabsent). \\n Long’s first prong is satisfied here because the officers had \\nreasonable suspicion to believe that Vaccaro was dangerous \\nat the time they searched the car. In addition to Vaccaro’s fur‐\\ntive movements, the officers suspected that Vaccaro was un‐\\nder the influence of drugs, which gave them greater reason to \\nfear for their safety. See Long, 463 U.S. at 1050; United States v. \\n\\f8 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nKenerson, 585 F.3d 389, 392 (7th Cir. 2009). The officers also \\ndiscovered that Vaccaro was on probation for “false impris‐\\nonment,” and prior criminal activity is one factor that can con‐\\ntribute to reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Johnson, \\n427 F.3d 1053, 1057 (7th Cir. 2005). \\n The second prong of the Long inquiry requires the govern‐\\nment to establish that the officers reasonably suspected that \\nVaccaro could gain “immediate control” of weapons in the ve‐\\nhicle. See 463 U.S. at 1049–50; United States v. Stewart, 902 F.3d \\n664, 674 (7th Cir. 2018). Vaccaro claims that he could not have \\nimmediately obtained weapons because he was handcuffed \\nand locked in the back of a squad car. He insists that this case \\nis controlled by Arizona v. Gant, in which the Supreme Court \\nheld that officer‐safety concerns did not justify a search inci‐\\ndent to the arrest of a driver who had been handcuffed and \\nlocked in the back seat of a squad car. 556 U.S. at 335. The \\ngovernment, on the other hand, contends that Gant doesn’t \\ngovern because Vaccaro wasn’t arrested. When a suspect is \\nmerely detained, the government argues, United States v. Ar‐\\nnold controls the Long inquiry. 388 F.3d 237, 241 (7th Cir. \\n2004). \\n In Arnold, which we decided before Gant, the motorist \\nmade furtive movements upon being stopped by police. 388 \\nF.3d at 238. The officer asked him to step out of the vehicle, \\npatted him down, and “placed [the motorist] in the back seat \\nof the patrol car so that he could ensure that the traffic stop \\nwas completed safely.” Id. The officer then decided to have \\nthe car towed because the defendant had been driving with a \\nlearner’s permit without a licensed driver. Id. Before towing \\nthe vehicle, however, the officer searched it and discovered a \\nfirearm. Id. at 238–39. We held that officer‐safety concerns \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 9 \\n\\njustified the search under Long. Id. at 241. This was a traffic \\nstop, not an arrest, and the officer “may have permitted [the \\nmotorist] to gather items from the car before leaving the scene \\neven if the officer would not have permitted him to drive the \\nvehicle.” Id. We also noted that while the motorist was in the \\nback seat of the squad car, he was not handcuffed and there‐\\nfore “could have broken away from [the officer’s] control.” Id. \\n At oral argument, we asked the government whether Gant \\nlimited or overruled Arnold, and it maintained that Arnold is \\nstill good law. We agree. In Arnold, it was reasonable to be‐\\nlieve that the defendant, who was not under arrest, could \\nhave regained access to his vehicle. See id. at 238, 241; see also \\nGant, 556 U.S. at 352 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“In the no‐arrest \\ncase, the possibility of access to weapons in the vehicle always \\nexists, since the driver or passenger will be allowed to return \\nto the vehicle when the interrogation is completed.”). In Gant, \\nthe opposite was true: the defendants were not going to return \\nto the vehicle because they were arrested, handcuffed, and \\nlocked in squad cars. See 556 U.S. at 336–37, 344. The cases \\ntherefore do not conflict: Arnold applies to Terry stops; Gant \\napplies to arrests. \\n Thus, if Vaccaro had been under arrest, Gant would con‐\\ntrol. And if Vaccaro contended that he had been under arrest, \\nwe would face the difficult task of determining whether this \\nTerry stop became an arrest. See, e.g., United States v. Bullock, \\n632 F.3d 1004, 1016–18 (7th Cir. 2011). But Vaccaro does not \\nargue that the officers arrested him. To the contrary, he con‐\\nceded at oral argument that he had been subjected to a Terry \\nstop, not an arrest, and that he would have been allowed back \\nto his vehicle at the conclusion of his brief detention if the \\n\\f10 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nofficers had found no contraband.1 Vaccaro’s concession dic‐\\ntates the disposition of this case. By admitting that he would \\nhave been allowed to return to his car, Vaccaro conceded that \\nhe could have gained “immediate control of weapons” inside \\nthe vehicle. The search was therefore lawful under Long. 463 \\nU.S. at 1049; Arnold, 388 F.3d at 241. \\n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. \\n \\n \\n \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n \\n1 Vaccaro also conceded that he did not argue in the district court that his \\n\\ndetention amounted to an arrest, rather than a Terry stop.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":670,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588443,"string":"4,588,443"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Dandre Moody"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1837"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1837\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nDANDRE MOODY,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15-CR-350 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and BARRETT, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Within two days of helping his\\ncodefendants steal more than 100 guns from a train car, Dan-\\ndre Moody sold 13 of them to anonymous buyers who tele-\\nphoned him after they “heard about it.” He pleaded guilty to\\npossessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); pos-\\nsessing a stolen firearm, id. § 922(j); and cargo theft, id. § 659,\\nfor which he was sentenced to 93 months’ imprisonment.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1837\\n\\n Moody now appeals his sentence. He challenges, for the\\nfirst time, a four-level guideline enhancement under U.S.S.G.\\n§ 2K2.1(b)(5) for trafficking firearms to people he knew (or\\nhad reason to know) were unlawful users or possessors.1\\n We agree with Moody that the district court plainly erred\\nby imposing this enhancement. Nothing in the record sug-\\ngests that Moody had reason to believe that his buyers were\\nunlawful gun users or possessors. By finding that Moody had\\nsuch knowledge, the court plainly crossed the line that sepa-\\nrates permissible commonsense inference from impermissible\\nspeculation. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand\\nfor further sentencing proceedings.\\n I.\\n One night in April 2015, Moody drove a train-theft crew\\nto a railyard on the south side of Chicago. There, while part\\n\\n\\n 1 Moody has abandoned a different argument: that the district court\\nengaged in impermissible double-counting under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b) by\\napplying both the four-level trafficking enhancement and a four-level en-\\nhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony.\\nMoody asked to incorporate by reference this argument from a codefend-\\nant’s brief in an appeal that was not consolidated with this one. We need\\nnot address this argument for two reasons. First, as Moody conceded in\\nhis briefing, we rejected this double-counting theory from a codefendant’s\\nappeal, United States v. Shelton, 905 F.3d 1026, 1035 (7th Cir. 2018), and\\nMoody posits no grounds for overruling that decision. Second, because\\nthis case was not consolidated with Shelton’s, Moody was not permitted\\nto incorporate by reference his codefendant’s arguments. See Albrechtsen\\nv. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 435–36 (7th Cir.\\n2002) (“[A]ppellate briefs may not incorporate other documents by refer-\\nence.”); see also Parker v. Franklin Cty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 667 F.3d 910, 924\\n(7th Cir. 2012) (rejecting defendants’ attempt to incorporate by reference\\narguments in their prior district-court brief).\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 3\\n\\nof the crew broke into a parked train car and stole 111 guns,\\nMoody waited, ready to drive away with any merchandise\\nthat the crew might retrieve.\\n Moody’s share of the loot was 13 guns. Within two days,\\naccording to his uncontradicted testimony at his change-of-\\nplea hearing, he sold them to different anonymous buyers\\nwho phoned him after they had “heard about it.” Moody was\\nnot asked follow-up questions on the record about the nature\\nof “it,” and the presentence investigation report did nothing\\nto further clarify what the callers had heard. Of the crew’s sto-\\nlen guns, 33 were recovered before sentencing—17 at crime\\nscenes. The sentencing record does not, however, tie Moody\\nto any of the recovered guns. Moody pleaded guilty to pos-\\nsessing a gun as a felon, possessing a stolen gun, and cargo\\ntheft.\\n Sentencing followed. The district court began the sentenc-\\ning hearing by confirming that Moody had reviewed the\\nPSR’s guidelines calculation (which included the enhance-\\nment at issue here, but not any factual detail on that point)\\nwith counsel, had filed no objections, and planned to make\\nnone. The court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of\\n121 to 151 months’ imprisonment. In doing so, it applied three\\nenhancements from the 2016 Guidelines Manual, including a\\nfour-level enhancement pursuant to 2K2.1(b)(5) because the\\noffense involved trafficking in firearms. The court reasoned\\nthat this enhancement applied because Moody had sold his\\nshare of stolen guns “literally to anyone who called express-\\ning an interest in getting” them, and the court presumed that\\nat least several of these people would use them in future\\ncrimes. The court said that this conduct posed a danger to the\\n\\f4 No. 18-1837\\n\\ncommunity because “many [of the guns] have been recovered\\nin Chicago, many of them at crime scenes.” It continued:\\n I know, Mr. Moody, that you don’t for a second\\n believe that any of those folks were interested in\\n lawfully possessing a firearm. There is abso-\\n lutely no question that the people that were\\n seeking to buy those firearms wanted those fire-\\n arms to support other unlawful activity beyond\\n their possession of the firearms. Whether it was\\n drug trafficking, whether it was violent crime,\\n whether it was burglary, robbery, that’s who\\n buys guns that have been stolen off a train.\\n The court sentenced Moody to a prison term of 93 months,\\nwhich was below the advisory Guidelines range.\\n II.\\n Moody argues that the district court wrongly applied the\\nfirearm-trafficking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).\\nHe maintains that the government did not provide sufficient\\nevidence that he had reason to believe that 2 or more of the 13\\nbuyers either were legally barred from firearm possession (by\\nvirtue of a prior conviction for, say, a crime of violence like\\naggravated assault, see § 2K2.1 n.13(B) & § 4B1.2(a)(2)), or\\nwould use the guns in other crimes. Based on this record, he\\ncontends, someone in his shoes could at most reasonably\\nthink only that the callers wished to make an unlawful pur-\\nchase but not that they were otherwise barred from firearm\\npossession or would use the guns unlawfully.\\n Before tackling the merits of Moody’s argument, we must\\naddress a threshold issue: the parties’ dispute about whether\\nMoody’s failure to object in the district court to this\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 5\\n\\nenhancement means that he “waived” or merely “forfeited”\\nthis argument. Whether a defendant had reason to know of a\\ngun-buyer’s nefarious purpose is the kind of factual question\\nwe review for clear error if the issue is preserved. United States\\nv. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918 (7th Cir. 2001). But the even more\\ndeferential standard of plain-error review applies when an\\nobjection has been forfeited, and no review is available when\\nit has been waived. United States v. Oliver, 873 F.3d 601, 607\\n(7th Cir. 2017). An issue is waived when a defendant inten-\\ntionally relinquishes a known right; it is merely forfeited\\nwhen a defendant neglects to timely object. Id.\\n Here, the better view is that Moody forfeited rather than\\nwaived the objection. “The touchstone of waiver is a knowing\\nand intentional decision.” United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406\\nF.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2005). If the government cannot proffer\\nany strategic justification for a defendant’s omission, we will\\npresume an inadvertent forfeiture rather than an intentional\\nrelinquishment. Oliver, 873 F.3d at 607; cf. United States v.\\nYoung, 908 F.3d 241, 246–47 (7th Cir. 2018). No one has pro-\\nposed a strategic reason for Moody to have bypassed a chal-\\nlenge to a four-level enhancement. Thus, the claim is forfeited,\\nand we will review the district court’s decision for plain-error.\\nOliver, 873 F.3d at 607.\\n Under the plain-error standard, Moody must show that\\nthe error is not subject to reasonable dispute, that it affected\\nhis substantial rights, and that it diminished the fairness, in-\\ntegrity, or reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id.; Molina-\\nMartinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016); Fed. R.\\nCrim. P. 52(b). Although that standard is demanding, Moody\\nmeets it.\\n\\f6 No. 18-1837\\n\\n U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) directs a court to increase a defend-\\nant’s offense level by four for the “trafficking” of firearms. As\\nrelevant here, this means that the defendant “knew or had\\nreason to believe” that, for at least two guns, the recipient in-\\ntended to use the weapon in a further crime or was already a\\nperson prohibited, by federal law on specified grounds, from\\npossessing guns. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A). A “person prohib-\\nited” is narrowly defined as someone “whose possession or\\nreceipt of the firearm would be unlawful.” Id. Such a person\\n“(i) has a prior conviction for a crime of violence, a controlled\\nsubstance offense, or a misdemeanor crime of domestic vio-\\nlence; or (ii) at the time of the offense was under a criminal justice\\nsentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, im-\\nprisonment, work release, or escape status.” Id. at n.13(B) (em-\\nphasis added). The government bears the burden of proving\\nby a preponderance of the evidence that this enhancement is\\nwarranted. United States v. Johnson, 743 F.3d 196, 201 (7th Cir.\\n2014).\\n Moody attacks as impermissibly speculative the district\\ncourt’s conclusion that he had reason to believe that his buy-\\ners were barred from gun possession or that they intended to\\nuse the guns in crimes. In his view, the court assumed that the\\ncallers had heard about the train theft and were seeking to\\nbuy guns that they knew were stolen. And from that premise,\\nthe court inferred that the callers planned to use these guns in\\nother crimes, and, further, that Moody had reason to know it.\\nThe PSR and sentencing memoranda, meanwhile, offered no\\nsubstantiation for this chain of inferences.\\n The government counters that while Moody did not know\\nhis buyers’ identities, he surely knew that they were in the\\nmarket for stolen guns. Common sense, the government adds,\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 7\\n\\nwould say that few, if any, of these 13 anonymous buyers of\\nstolen guns would be permitted by federal law to possess\\nguns generally.\\n But the only evidence that the government offered on this\\npoint is Moody’s remark that he sold his share of the guns to\\n“different people who heard about it.” But what “it” refers to\\nis impossible to discern from the record. “It” might refer to\\nthe train heist, or “it” might refer to a bunch of guns (which\\nmay or may not be stolen) available for an off-the-books sale.\\nIf “it” merely refers to a load of guns for sale, then Moody’s\\nstatement simply establishes that he possessed stolen fire-\\narms. But that criminal act is already accounted for by his con-\\nviction for possessing a stolen firearm and does not justify the\\nenhancement. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). And the anonymous\\nparticipants’ interest in off-the-books gun sales might have\\ngiven Moody reason to believe that their purchases were un-\\nlawful, but not that their possession or use of the guns is un-\\nlawful. As Moody emphasizes, those who purchase guns un-\\nlawfully do not necessarily fall into the prohibited category\\ndefined by U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). For example, Lori Shelton,\\na lawful gun-owner identified in a codefendant’s sentencing\\nrecord, bought firearms from the heist. Shelton carried a valid\\nfirearm license and intended to give the guns to her adult chil-\\ndren once they, too, obtained licenses. The government cor-\\nrectly notes that Shelton’s intentional purchase of stolen prop-\\nerty was itself a crime in Illinois, see 720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4), but\\nthis did not make her a prohibited person under U.S.S.G. §\\n2K2.1 n.13(B).\\n Moody’s case thus stands in contrast to those in which the\\nseller knew something more about the buyers than that they\\nwere in the market for a gun. See, e.g., United States v.\\n\\f8 No. 18-1837\\n\\nRodriguez, 884 F.3d 679, 679–81 (7th Cir. 2018) (upholding en-\\nhancement where defendant and recipient discussed using\\nguns unlawfully); United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\\n(7th Cir. 2001) (reasoning that it would be “naïve” to conclude\\nthat Jemison had no reason to think guns he sold to a gang\\nwould be used to commit other felonies; “the public [is] not\\nblissfully ignorant of the connection between criminal vio-\\nlence and street gangs”). Indeed, Moody’s case also stands in\\ncontrast to that of his codefendants because in their case, the\\ngovernment introduced evidence that they knew specific\\nbuyers were prohibited persons.2 His case is more like United\\nStates v. Green, 360 F. App’x. 521, 522–25 (5th Cir. 2010) (non-\\nprecedential disposition), in which the Fifth Circuit rejected\\nthe enhancement for a defendant who smuggled five guns to\\ntwo people in Mexico. The enhancement was based on the\\ndistrict court’s supposition that guns in Mexico are predomi-\\nnantly used by drug-trafficking organizations. The Fifth Cir-\\ncuit held that this supposition was too big a leap. Id. at 525.\\n In short, the government’s evidence that Moody sold guns\\nto “different people who heard about it” is an insufficient ba-\\nsis for concluding that Moody sold guns to 2 or more people\\nwho satisfied the narrow criteria of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A).\\nIn concluding otherwise, the district court relied on a series of\\ninferences that were plainly too speculative to support a\\n\\n\\n 2 We might feel differently about this case if the government had pre-\\nsented more evidence (e.g., if the government had shown that Moody’s\\nbuyers were connected to him and his train heist). But it is not clear from\\nthe record—not even the presentence investigation report or the govern-\\nment’s sentencing memo—what Moody knew or had reason to know\\nabout who his buyers were or why they wanted guns, beyond his admis-\\nsion that his callers had “heard about it.”\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 9\\n\\nfinding by a preponderance of the evidence. We therefore\\nagree with Moody that the enhancement was plainly im-\\nproper.\\n In so holding, we are mindful that our precedents allow a\\ndistrict court great leeway to make commonsense inferences.\\nSee, e.g., United States v. Gilmore, 60 F.3d 392, 393–94 (7th Cir.\\n1995); see also United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\\n(7th Cir. 2001). In Gilmore, we held that a district court did not\\nerr by inferring that the defendant had reason to believe the\\nguns he “lost” would be used unlawfully, even though the\\nonly evidence was that one of the guns was found at a crime\\nscene and Gilmore (the original gunowner) did not know the\\nidentities of the new owners. 60 F.3d at 394. But in Moody’s\\ncase, no such inference is available. Although 17 of the crew’s\\n111 firearms were found at crime scenes, no evidence ties any\\nof the guns found at crime scenes to those sold by Moody.\\nBecause the inferential leap required by common sense is too\\ngreat here, the government has not met its burden of proof.\\n Of course, this error is not reversible simply because it is\\nplain—we must also conclude that it affected Moody’s sub-\\nstantial rights and diminished the fairness, integrity, or repu-\\ntation of the judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has re-\\npeatedly emphasized that when an unpreserved guideline er-\\nror is plain, it typically affects both fundamental rights and\\nfairness by setting an incorrect range for the probable sen-\\ntence. See generally Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.\\n1338 (2016); Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897\\n(2018). That is true here. The district court gave no indication\\nthat it chose a sentence “irrespective of the Guidelines range.”\\nMolina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. at 1346. And without the enhance-\\nment, Moody’s advisory Guidelines range would drop from\\n\\f10 No. 18-1837\\n\\n121–151 months to 78–97 months. Because the district court’s\\ncurrent 93-month sentence was designed to fall below the\\nrange the judge had calculated, we cannot be confident that\\nthe court would have been unwilling to go even lower.\\n None of this is to say that Moody is assured a lighter sen-\\ntence on remand. Perhaps a revised PSR or other evidence\\nwill cure any ambiguity. And even if the gun-trafficking\\nguideline does not apply, the district court may consider\\nwhether, as a matter of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3553(a), Moody’s blindness to his buyers’ identities makes it\\nreasonable to refrain from going any lower. These possibili-\\nties are for the district court to consider in the first instance.\\n III.\\n The judgment of the district court is VACATED and\\nREMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this de-\\ncision.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4365696/\", \"author_raw\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"RIPPLE\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588443/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Dandre Moody\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1837\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nDANDRE MOODY,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 15-CR-350 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and BARRETT, Circuit\nJudges.\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Within two days of helping his\ncodefendants steal more than 100 guns from a train car, Dan-\ndre Moody sold 13 of them to anonymous buyers who tele-\nphoned him after they “heard about it.” He pleaded guilty to\npossessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); pos-\nsessing a stolen firearm, id. § 922(j); and cargo theft, id. § 659,\nfor which he was sentenced to 93 months’ imprisonment.\n\f2 No. 18-1837\n\n Moody now appeals his sentence. He challenges, for the\nfirst time, a four-level guideline enhancement under U.S.S.G.\n§ 2K2.1(b)(5) for trafficking firearms to people he knew (or\nhad reason to know) were unlawful users or possessors.1\n We agree with Moody that the district court plainly erred\nby imposing this enhancement. Nothing in the record sug-\ngests that Moody had reason to believe that his buyers were\nunlawful gun users or possessors. By finding that Moody had\nsuch knowledge, the court plainly crossed the line that sepa-\nrates permissible commonsense inference from impermissible\nspeculation. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand\nfor further sentencing proceedings.\n I.\n One night in April 2015, Moody drove a train-theft crew\nto a railyard on the south side of Chicago. There, while part\n\n\n 1 Moody has abandoned a different argument: that the district court\nengaged in impermissible double-counting under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b) by\napplying both the four-level trafficking enhancement and a four-level en-\nhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony.\nMoody asked to incorporate by reference this argument from a codefend-\nant’s brief in an appeal that was not consolidated with this one. We need\nnot address this argument for two reasons. First, as Moody conceded in\nhis briefing, we rejected this double-counting theory from a codefendant’s\nappeal, United States v. Shelton, 905 F.3d 1026, 1035 (7th Cir. 2018), and\nMoody posits no grounds for overruling that decision. Second, because\nthis case was not consolidated with Shelton’s, Moody was not permitted\nto incorporate by reference his codefendant’s arguments. See Albrechtsen\nv. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 435–36 (7th Cir.\n2002) (“[A]ppellate briefs may not incorporate other documents by refer-\nence.”); see also Parker v. Franklin Cty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 667 F.3d 910, 924\n(7th Cir. 2012) (rejecting defendants’ attempt to incorporate by reference\narguments in their prior district-court brief).\n\fNo. 18-1837 3\n\nof the crew broke into a parked train car and stole 111 guns,\nMoody waited, ready to drive away with any merchandise\nthat the crew might retrieve.\n Moody’s share of the loot was 13 guns. Within two days,\naccording to his uncontradicted testimony at his change-of-\nplea hearing, he sold them to different anonymous buyers\nwho phoned him after they had “heard about it.” Moody was\nnot asked follow-up questions on the record about the nature\nof “it,” and the presentence investigation report did nothing\nto further clarify what the callers had heard. Of the crew’s sto-\nlen guns, 33 were recovered before sentencing—17 at crime\nscenes. The sentencing record does not, however, tie Moody\nto any of the recovered guns. Moody pleaded guilty to pos-\nsessing a gun as a felon, possessing a stolen gun, and cargo\ntheft.\n Sentencing followed. The district court began the sentenc-\ning hearing by confirming that Moody had reviewed the\nPSR’s guidelines calculation (which included the enhance-\nment at issue here, but not any factual detail on that point)\nwith counsel, had filed no objections, and planned to make\nnone. The court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of\n121 to 151 months’ imprisonment. In doing so, it applied three\nenhancements from the 2016 Guidelines Manual, including a\nfour-level enhancement pursuant to 2K2.1(b)(5) because the\noffense involved trafficking in firearms. The court reasoned\nthat this enhancement applied because Moody had sold his\nshare of stolen guns “literally to anyone who called express-\ning an interest in getting” them, and the court presumed that\nat least several of these people would use them in future\ncrimes. The court said that this conduct posed a danger to the\n\f4 No. 18-1837\n\ncommunity because “many [of the guns] have been recovered\nin Chicago, many of them at crime scenes.” It continued:\n I know, Mr. Moody, that you don’t for a second\n believe that any of those folks were interested in\n lawfully possessing a firearm. There is abso-\n lutely no question that the people that were\n seeking to buy those firearms wanted those fire-\n arms to support other unlawful activity beyond\n their possession of the firearms. Whether it was\n drug trafficking, whether it was violent crime,\n whether it was burglary, robbery, that’s who\n buys guns that have been stolen off a train.\n The court sentenced Moody to a prison term of 93 months,\nwhich was below the advisory Guidelines range.\n II.\n Moody argues that the district court wrongly applied the\nfirearm-trafficking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).\nHe maintains that the government did not provide sufficient\nevidence that he had reason to believe that 2 or more of the 13\nbuyers either were legally barred from firearm possession (by\nvirtue of a prior conviction for, say, a crime of violence like\naggravated assault, see § 2K2.1 n.13(B) & § 4B1.2(a)(2)), or\nwould use the guns in other crimes. Based on this record, he\ncontends, someone in his shoes could at most reasonably\nthink only that the callers wished to make an unlawful pur-\nchase but not that they were otherwise barred from firearm\npossession or would use the guns unlawfully.\n Before tackling the merits of Moody’s argument, we must\naddress a threshold issue: the parties’ dispute about whether\nMoody’s failure to object in the district court to this\n\fNo. 18-1837 5\n\nenhancement means that he “waived” or merely “forfeited”\nthis argument. Whether a defendant had reason to know of a\ngun-buyer’s nefarious purpose is the kind of factual question\nwe review for clear error if the issue is preserved. United States\nv. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918 (7th Cir. 2001). But the even more\ndeferential standard of plain-error review applies when an\nobjection has been forfeited, and no review is available when\nit has been waived. United States v. Oliver, 873 F.3d 601, 607\n(7th Cir. 2017). An issue is waived when a defendant inten-\ntionally relinquishes a known right; it is merely forfeited\nwhen a defendant neglects to timely object. Id.\n Here, the better view is that Moody forfeited rather than\nwaived the objection. “The touchstone of waiver is a knowing\nand intentional decision.” United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406\nF.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2005). If the government cannot proffer\nany strategic justification for a defendant’s omission, we will\npresume an inadvertent forfeiture rather than an intentional\nrelinquishment. Oliver, 873 F.3d at 607; cf. United States v.\nYoung, 908 F.3d 241, 246–47 (7th Cir. 2018). No one has pro-\nposed a strategic reason for Moody to have bypassed a chal-\nlenge to a four-level enhancement. Thus, the claim is forfeited,\nand we will review the district court’s decision for plain-error.\nOliver, 873 F.3d at 607.\n Under the plain-error standard, Moody must show that\nthe error is not subject to reasonable dispute, that it affected\nhis substantial rights, and that it diminished the fairness, in-\ntegrity, or reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id.; Molina-\nMartinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016); Fed. R.\nCrim. P. 52(b). Although that standard is demanding, Moody\nmeets it.\n\f6 No. 18-1837\n\n U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) directs a court to increase a defend-\nant’s offense level by four for the “trafficking” of firearms. As\nrelevant here, this means that the defendant “knew or had\nreason to believe” that, for at least two guns, the recipient in-\ntended to use the weapon in a further crime or was already a\nperson prohibited, by federal law on specified grounds, from\npossessing guns. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A). A “person prohib-\nited” is narrowly defined as someone “whose possession or\nreceipt of the firearm would be unlawful.” Id. Such a person\n“(i) has a prior conviction for a crime of violence, a controlled\nsubstance offense, or a misdemeanor crime of domestic vio-\nlence; or (ii) at the time of the offense was under a criminal justice\nsentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, im-\nprisonment, work release, or escape status.” Id. at n.13(B) (em-\nphasis added). The government bears the burden of proving\nby a preponderance of the evidence that this enhancement is\nwarranted. United States v. Johnson, 743 F.3d 196, 201 (7th Cir.\n2014).\n Moody attacks as impermissibly speculative the district\ncourt’s conclusion that he had reason to believe that his buy-\ners were barred from gun possession or that they intended to\nuse the guns in crimes. In his view, the court assumed that the\ncallers had heard about the train theft and were seeking to\nbuy guns that they knew were stolen. And from that premise,\nthe court inferred that the callers planned to use these guns in\nother crimes, and, further, that Moody had reason to know it.\nThe PSR and sentencing memoranda, meanwhile, offered no\nsubstantiation for this chain of inferences.\n The government counters that while Moody did not know\nhis buyers’ identities, he surely knew that they were in the\nmarket for stolen guns. Common sense, the government adds,\n\fNo. 18-1837 7\n\nwould say that few, if any, of these 13 anonymous buyers of\nstolen guns would be permitted by federal law to possess\nguns generally.\n But the only evidence that the government offered on this\npoint is Moody’s remark that he sold his share of the guns to\n“different people who heard about it.” But what “it” refers to\nis impossible to discern from the record. “It” might refer to\nthe train heist, or “it” might refer to a bunch of guns (which\nmay or may not be stolen) available for an off-the-books sale.\nIf “it” merely refers to a load of guns for sale, then Moody’s\nstatement simply establishes that he possessed stolen fire-\narms. But that criminal act is already accounted for by his con-\nviction for possessing a stolen firearm and does not justify the\nenhancement. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). And the anonymous\nparticipants’ interest in off-the-books gun sales might have\ngiven Moody reason to believe that their purchases were un-\nlawful, but not that their possession or use of the guns is un-\nlawful. As Moody emphasizes, those who purchase guns un-\nlawfully do not necessarily fall into the prohibited category\ndefined by U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). For example, Lori Shelton,\na lawful gun-owner identified in a codefendant’s sentencing\nrecord, bought firearms from the heist. Shelton carried a valid\nfirearm license and intended to give the guns to her adult chil-\ndren once they, too, obtained licenses. The government cor-\nrectly notes that Shelton’s intentional purchase of stolen prop-\nerty was itself a crime in Illinois, see 720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4), but\nthis did not make her a prohibited person under U.S.S.G. §\n2K2.1 n.13(B).\n Moody’s case thus stands in contrast to those in which the\nseller knew something more about the buyers than that they\nwere in the market for a gun. See, e.g., United States v.\n\f8 No. 18-1837\n\nRodriguez, 884 F.3d 679, 679–81 (7th Cir. 2018) (upholding en-\nhancement where defendant and recipient discussed using\nguns unlawfully); United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\n(7th Cir. 2001) (reasoning that it would be “naïve” to conclude\nthat Jemison had no reason to think guns he sold to a gang\nwould be used to commit other felonies; “the public [is] not\nblissfully ignorant of the connection between criminal vio-\nlence and street gangs”). Indeed, Moody’s case also stands in\ncontrast to that of his codefendants because in their case, the\ngovernment introduced evidence that they knew specific\nbuyers were prohibited persons.2 His case is more like United\nStates v. Green, 360 F. App’x. 521, 522–25 (5th Cir. 2010) (non-\nprecedential disposition), in which the Fifth Circuit rejected\nthe enhancement for a defendant who smuggled five guns to\ntwo people in Mexico. The enhancement was based on the\ndistrict court’s supposition that guns in Mexico are predomi-\nnantly used by drug-trafficking organizations. The Fifth Cir-\ncuit held that this supposition was too big a leap. Id. at 525.\n In short, the government’s evidence that Moody sold guns\nto “different people who heard about it” is an insufficient ba-\nsis for concluding that Moody sold guns to 2 or more people\nwho satisfied the narrow criteria of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A).\nIn concluding otherwise, the district court relied on a series of\ninferences that were plainly too speculative to support a\n\n\n 2 We might feel differently about this case if the government had pre-\nsented more evidence (e.g., if the government had shown that Moody’s\nbuyers were connected to him and his train heist). But it is not clear from\nthe record—not even the presentence investigation report or the govern-\nment’s sentencing memo—what Moody knew or had reason to know\nabout who his buyers were or why they wanted guns, beyond his admis-\nsion that his callers had “heard about it.”\n\fNo. 18-1837 9\n\nfinding by a preponderance of the evidence. We therefore\nagree with Moody that the enhancement was plainly im-\nproper.\n In so holding, we are mindful that our precedents allow a\ndistrict court great leeway to make commonsense inferences.\nSee, e.g., United States v. Gilmore, 60 F.3d 392, 393–94 (7th Cir.\n1995); see also United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\n(7th Cir. 2001). In Gilmore, we held that a district court did not\nerr by inferring that the defendant had reason to believe the\nguns he “lost” would be used unlawfully, even though the\nonly evidence was that one of the guns was found at a crime\nscene and Gilmore (the original gunowner) did not know the\nidentities of the new owners. 60 F.3d at 394. But in Moody’s\ncase, no such inference is available. Although 17 of the crew’s\n111 firearms were found at crime scenes, no evidence ties any\nof the guns found at crime scenes to those sold by Moody.\nBecause the inferential leap required by common sense is too\ngreat here, the government has not met its burden of proof.\n Of course, this error is not reversible simply because it is\nplain—we must also conclude that it affected Moody’s sub-\nstantial rights and diminished the fairness, integrity, or repu-\ntation of the judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has re-\npeatedly emphasized that when an unpreserved guideline er-\nror is plain, it typically affects both fundamental rights and\nfairness by setting an incorrect range for the probable sen-\ntence. See generally Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.\n1338 (2016); Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897\n(2018). That is true here. The district court gave no indication\nthat it chose a sentence “irrespective of the Guidelines range.”\nMolina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. at 1346. And without the enhance-\nment, Moody’s advisory Guidelines range would drop from\n\f10 No. 18-1837\n\n121–151 months to 78–97 months. Because the district court’s\ncurrent 93-month sentence was designed to fall below the\nrange the judge had calculated, we cannot be confident that\nthe court would have been unwilling to go even lower.\n None of this is to say that Moody is assured a lighter sen-\ntence on remand. Perhaps a revised PSR or other evidence\nwill cure any ambiguity. And even if the gun-trafficking\nguideline does not apply, the district court may consider\nwhether, as a matter of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.\n§ 3553(a), Moody’s blindness to his buyers’ identities makes it\nreasonable to refrain from going any lower. These possibili-\nties are for the district court to consider in the first instance.\n III.\n The judgment of the district court is VACATED and\nREMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this de-\ncision.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Dandre Moody\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1837\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nDANDRE MOODY,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15-CR-350 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and BARRETT, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Within two days of helping his\\ncodefendants steal more than 100 guns from a train car, Dan-\\ndre Moody sold 13 of them to anonymous buyers who tele-\\nphoned him after they “heard about it.” He pleaded guilty to\\npossessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); pos-\\nsessing a stolen firearm, id. § 922(j); and cargo theft, id. § 659,\\nfor which he was sentenced to 93 months’ imprisonment.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1837\\n\\n Moody now appeals his sentence. He challenges, for the\\nfirst time, a four-level guideline enhancement under U.S.S.G.\\n§ 2K2.1(b)(5) for trafficking firearms to people he knew (or\\nhad reason to know) were unlawful users or possessors.1\\n We agree with Moody that the district court plainly erred\\nby imposing this enhancement. Nothing in the record sug-\\ngests that Moody had reason to believe that his buyers were\\nunlawful gun users or possessors. By finding that Moody had\\nsuch knowledge, the court plainly crossed the line that sepa-\\nrates permissible commonsense inference from impermissible\\nspeculation. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand\\nfor further sentencing proceedings.\\n I.\\n One night in April 2015, Moody drove a train-theft crew\\nto a railyard on the south side of Chicago. There, while part\\n\\n\\n 1 Moody has abandoned a different argument: that the district court\\nengaged in impermissible double-counting under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b) by\\napplying both the four-level trafficking enhancement and a four-level en-\\nhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony.\\nMoody asked to incorporate by reference this argument from a codefend-\\nant’s brief in an appeal that was not consolidated with this one. We need\\nnot address this argument for two reasons. First, as Moody conceded in\\nhis briefing, we rejected this double-counting theory from a codefendant’s\\nappeal, United States v. Shelton, 905 F.3d 1026, 1035 (7th Cir. 2018), and\\nMoody posits no grounds for overruling that decision. Second, because\\nthis case was not consolidated with Shelton’s, Moody was not permitted\\nto incorporate by reference his codefendant’s arguments. See Albrechtsen\\nv. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 435–36 (7th Cir.\\n2002) (“[A]ppellate briefs may not incorporate other documents by refer-\\nence.”); see also Parker v. Franklin Cty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 667 F.3d 910, 924\\n(7th Cir. 2012) (rejecting defendants’ attempt to incorporate by reference\\narguments in their prior district-court brief).\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 3\\n\\nof the crew broke into a parked train car and stole 111 guns,\\nMoody waited, ready to drive away with any merchandise\\nthat the crew might retrieve.\\n Moody’s share of the loot was 13 guns. Within two days,\\naccording to his uncontradicted testimony at his change-of-\\nplea hearing, he sold them to different anonymous buyers\\nwho phoned him after they had “heard about it.” Moody was\\nnot asked follow-up questions on the record about the nature\\nof “it,” and the presentence investigation report did nothing\\nto further clarify what the callers had heard. Of the crew’s sto-\\nlen guns, 33 were recovered before sentencing—17 at crime\\nscenes. The sentencing record does not, however, tie Moody\\nto any of the recovered guns. Moody pleaded guilty to pos-\\nsessing a gun as a felon, possessing a stolen gun, and cargo\\ntheft.\\n Sentencing followed. The district court began the sentenc-\\ning hearing by confirming that Moody had reviewed the\\nPSR’s guidelines calculation (which included the enhance-\\nment at issue here, but not any factual detail on that point)\\nwith counsel, had filed no objections, and planned to make\\nnone. The court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of\\n121 to 151 months’ imprisonment. In doing so, it applied three\\nenhancements from the 2016 Guidelines Manual, including a\\nfour-level enhancement pursuant to 2K2.1(b)(5) because the\\noffense involved trafficking in firearms. The court reasoned\\nthat this enhancement applied because Moody had sold his\\nshare of stolen guns “literally to anyone who called express-\\ning an interest in getting” them, and the court presumed that\\nat least several of these people would use them in future\\ncrimes. The court said that this conduct posed a danger to the\\n\\f4 No. 18-1837\\n\\ncommunity because “many [of the guns] have been recovered\\nin Chicago, many of them at crime scenes.” It continued:\\n I know, Mr. Moody, that you don’t for a second\\n believe that any of those folks were interested in\\n lawfully possessing a firearm. There is abso-\\n lutely no question that the people that were\\n seeking to buy those firearms wanted those fire-\\n arms to support other unlawful activity beyond\\n their possession of the firearms. Whether it was\\n drug trafficking, whether it was violent crime,\\n whether it was burglary, robbery, that’s who\\n buys guns that have been stolen off a train.\\n The court sentenced Moody to a prison term of 93 months,\\nwhich was below the advisory Guidelines range.\\n II.\\n Moody argues that the district court wrongly applied the\\nfirearm-trafficking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).\\nHe maintains that the government did not provide sufficient\\nevidence that he had reason to believe that 2 or more of the 13\\nbuyers either were legally barred from firearm possession (by\\nvirtue of a prior conviction for, say, a crime of violence like\\naggravated assault, see § 2K2.1 n.13(B) & § 4B1.2(a)(2)), or\\nwould use the guns in other crimes. Based on this record, he\\ncontends, someone in his shoes could at most reasonably\\nthink only that the callers wished to make an unlawful pur-\\nchase but not that they were otherwise barred from firearm\\npossession or would use the guns unlawfully.\\n Before tackling the merits of Moody’s argument, we must\\naddress a threshold issue: the parties’ dispute about whether\\nMoody’s failure to object in the district court to this\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 5\\n\\nenhancement means that he “waived” or merely “forfeited”\\nthis argument. Whether a defendant had reason to know of a\\ngun-buyer’s nefarious purpose is the kind of factual question\\nwe review for clear error if the issue is preserved. United States\\nv. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918 (7th Cir. 2001). But the even more\\ndeferential standard of plain-error review applies when an\\nobjection has been forfeited, and no review is available when\\nit has been waived. United States v. Oliver, 873 F.3d 601, 607\\n(7th Cir. 2017). An issue is waived when a defendant inten-\\ntionally relinquishes a known right; it is merely forfeited\\nwhen a defendant neglects to timely object. Id.\\n Here, the better view is that Moody forfeited rather than\\nwaived the objection. “The touchstone of waiver is a knowing\\nand intentional decision.” United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406\\nF.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2005). If the government cannot proffer\\nany strategic justification for a defendant’s omission, we will\\npresume an inadvertent forfeiture rather than an intentional\\nrelinquishment. Oliver, 873 F.3d at 607; cf. United States v.\\nYoung, 908 F.3d 241, 246–47 (7th Cir. 2018). No one has pro-\\nposed a strategic reason for Moody to have bypassed a chal-\\nlenge to a four-level enhancement. Thus, the claim is forfeited,\\nand we will review the district court’s decision for plain-error.\\nOliver, 873 F.3d at 607.\\n Under the plain-error standard, Moody must show that\\nthe error is not subject to reasonable dispute, that it affected\\nhis substantial rights, and that it diminished the fairness, in-\\ntegrity, or reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id.; Molina-\\nMartinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016); Fed. R.\\nCrim. P. 52(b). Although that standard is demanding, Moody\\nmeets it.\\n\\f6 No. 18-1837\\n\\n U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) directs a court to increase a defend-\\nant’s offense level by four for the “trafficking” of firearms. As\\nrelevant here, this means that the defendant “knew or had\\nreason to believe” that, for at least two guns, the recipient in-\\ntended to use the weapon in a further crime or was already a\\nperson prohibited, by federal law on specified grounds, from\\npossessing guns. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A). A “person prohib-\\nited” is narrowly defined as someone “whose possession or\\nreceipt of the firearm would be unlawful.” Id. Such a person\\n“(i) has a prior conviction for a crime of violence, a controlled\\nsubstance offense, or a misdemeanor crime of domestic vio-\\nlence; or (ii) at the time of the offense was under a criminal justice\\nsentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, im-\\nprisonment, work release, or escape status.” Id. at n.13(B) (em-\\nphasis added). The government bears the burden of proving\\nby a preponderance of the evidence that this enhancement is\\nwarranted. United States v. Johnson, 743 F.3d 196, 201 (7th Cir.\\n2014).\\n Moody attacks as impermissibly speculative the district\\ncourt’s conclusion that he had reason to believe that his buy-\\ners were barred from gun possession or that they intended to\\nuse the guns in crimes. In his view, the court assumed that the\\ncallers had heard about the train theft and were seeking to\\nbuy guns that they knew were stolen. And from that premise,\\nthe court inferred that the callers planned to use these guns in\\nother crimes, and, further, that Moody had reason to know it.\\nThe PSR and sentencing memoranda, meanwhile, offered no\\nsubstantiation for this chain of inferences.\\n The government counters that while Moody did not know\\nhis buyers’ identities, he surely knew that they were in the\\nmarket for stolen guns. Common sense, the government adds,\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 7\\n\\nwould say that few, if any, of these 13 anonymous buyers of\\nstolen guns would be permitted by federal law to possess\\nguns generally.\\n But the only evidence that the government offered on this\\npoint is Moody’s remark that he sold his share of the guns to\\n“different people who heard about it.” But what “it” refers to\\nis impossible to discern from the record. “It” might refer to\\nthe train heist, or “it” might refer to a bunch of guns (which\\nmay or may not be stolen) available for an off-the-books sale.\\nIf “it” merely refers to a load of guns for sale, then Moody’s\\nstatement simply establishes that he possessed stolen fire-\\narms. But that criminal act is already accounted for by his con-\\nviction for possessing a stolen firearm and does not justify the\\nenhancement. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). And the anonymous\\nparticipants’ interest in off-the-books gun sales might have\\ngiven Moody reason to believe that their purchases were un-\\nlawful, but not that their possession or use of the guns is un-\\nlawful. As Moody emphasizes, those who purchase guns un-\\nlawfully do not necessarily fall into the prohibited category\\ndefined by U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). For example, Lori Shelton,\\na lawful gun-owner identified in a codefendant’s sentencing\\nrecord, bought firearms from the heist. Shelton carried a valid\\nfirearm license and intended to give the guns to her adult chil-\\ndren once they, too, obtained licenses. The government cor-\\nrectly notes that Shelton’s intentional purchase of stolen prop-\\nerty was itself a crime in Illinois, see 720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4), but\\nthis did not make her a prohibited person under U.S.S.G. §\\n2K2.1 n.13(B).\\n Moody’s case thus stands in contrast to those in which the\\nseller knew something more about the buyers than that they\\nwere in the market for a gun. See, e.g., United States v.\\n\\f8 No. 18-1837\\n\\nRodriguez, 884 F.3d 679, 679–81 (7th Cir. 2018) (upholding en-\\nhancement where defendant and recipient discussed using\\nguns unlawfully); United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\\n(7th Cir. 2001) (reasoning that it would be “naïve” to conclude\\nthat Jemison had no reason to think guns he sold to a gang\\nwould be used to commit other felonies; “the public [is] not\\nblissfully ignorant of the connection between criminal vio-\\nlence and street gangs”). Indeed, Moody’s case also stands in\\ncontrast to that of his codefendants because in their case, the\\ngovernment introduced evidence that they knew specific\\nbuyers were prohibited persons.2 His case is more like United\\nStates v. Green, 360 F. App’x. 521, 522–25 (5th Cir. 2010) (non-\\nprecedential disposition), in which the Fifth Circuit rejected\\nthe enhancement for a defendant who smuggled five guns to\\ntwo people in Mexico. The enhancement was based on the\\ndistrict court’s supposition that guns in Mexico are predomi-\\nnantly used by drug-trafficking organizations. The Fifth Cir-\\ncuit held that this supposition was too big a leap. Id. at 525.\\n In short, the government’s evidence that Moody sold guns\\nto “different people who heard about it” is an insufficient ba-\\nsis for concluding that Moody sold guns to 2 or more people\\nwho satisfied the narrow criteria of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.13(A).\\nIn concluding otherwise, the district court relied on a series of\\ninferences that were plainly too speculative to support a\\n\\n\\n 2 We might feel differently about this case if the government had pre-\\nsented more evidence (e.g., if the government had shown that Moody’s\\nbuyers were connected to him and his train heist). But it is not clear from\\nthe record—not even the presentence investigation report or the govern-\\nment’s sentencing memo—what Moody knew or had reason to know\\nabout who his buyers were or why they wanted guns, beyond his admis-\\nsion that his callers had “heard about it.”\\n\\fNo. 18-1837 9\\n\\nfinding by a preponderance of the evidence. We therefore\\nagree with Moody that the enhancement was plainly im-\\nproper.\\n In so holding, we are mindful that our precedents allow a\\ndistrict court great leeway to make commonsense inferences.\\nSee, e.g., United States v. Gilmore, 60 F.3d 392, 393–94 (7th Cir.\\n1995); see also United States v. Jemison, 237 F.3d 911, 918\\n(7th Cir. 2001). In Gilmore, we held that a district court did not\\nerr by inferring that the defendant had reason to believe the\\nguns he “lost” would be used unlawfully, even though the\\nonly evidence was that one of the guns was found at a crime\\nscene and Gilmore (the original gunowner) did not know the\\nidentities of the new owners. 60 F.3d at 394. But in Moody’s\\ncase, no such inference is available. Although 17 of the crew’s\\n111 firearms were found at crime scenes, no evidence ties any\\nof the guns found at crime scenes to those sold by Moody.\\nBecause the inferential leap required by common sense is too\\ngreat here, the government has not met its burden of proof.\\n Of course, this error is not reversible simply because it is\\nplain—we must also conclude that it affected Moody’s sub-\\nstantial rights and diminished the fairness, integrity, or repu-\\ntation of the judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has re-\\npeatedly emphasized that when an unpreserved guideline er-\\nror is plain, it typically affects both fundamental rights and\\nfairness by setting an incorrect range for the probable sen-\\ntence. See generally Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.\\n1338 (2016); Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897\\n(2018). That is true here. The district court gave no indication\\nthat it chose a sentence “irrespective of the Guidelines range.”\\nMolina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. at 1346. And without the enhance-\\nment, Moody’s advisory Guidelines range would drop from\\n\\f10 No. 18-1837\\n\\n121–151 months to 78–97 months. Because the district court’s\\ncurrent 93-month sentence was designed to fall below the\\nrange the judge had calculated, we cannot be confident that\\nthe court would have been unwilling to go even lower.\\n None of this is to say that Moody is assured a lighter sen-\\ntence on remand. Perhaps a revised PSR or other evidence\\nwill cure any ambiguity. And even if the gun-trafficking\\nguideline does not apply, the district court may consider\\nwhether, as a matter of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3553(a), Moody’s blindness to his buyers’ identities makes it\\nreasonable to refrain from going any lower. These possibili-\\nties are for the district court to consider in the first instance.\\n III.\\n The judgment of the district court is VACATED and\\nREMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this de-\\ncision.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":671,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588515,"string":"4,588,515"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Travis Vaccaro"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1753"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 18‐1753 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nTRAVIS S. VACCARO, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Eastern District of Wisconsin. \\n No. 17‐CR‐84‐JPS — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Travis Vaccaro entered a condi‐\\ntional guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. \\n§ 922(g), preserving his right to appeal the denial of his mo‐\\ntion to suppress the gun. Vaccaro contests both the pat‐down \\nsearch that occurred seconds after police officers pulled over \\nhis car and the search of the car that yielded the gun. The pat‐\\ndown was lawful under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The \\n\\f2 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nsweep of the car, which the district court upheld under Mich‐\\nigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), is a closer call, but we con‐\\nclude that it too was permissible. Accordingly, we affirm. \\n Our summary of the facts is taken from an evidentiary \\nhearing on Vaccaro’s motion to suppress. Milwaukee police \\nofficers Aaron Frantal and Matthew Tracy stopped Vaccaro \\nfor running a red light. Officer Frantal testified that Vaccaro \\nstopped his car and made a “very ferocious move” by “bend‐\\ning at the waist.” Vaccaro then leaned toward the passenger \\nseat and “made another aggressive move with his entire top \\ntorso and both arms into the back seat of the vehicle.” Officer \\nTracy added that he saw Vaccaro “double over bending at the \\nwaist” and then reach toward the passenger side of the car. \\nOfficer Frantal testified that Vaccaro’s movements took under \\nfive seconds. Afraid that Vaccaro might be trying to “gain con‐\\ntrol of something from the back seat,” Officer Frantal drew his \\ngun and ordered Vaccaro out of his car. The officers immedi‐\\nately handcuffed Vaccaro, and Officer Frantal patted him \\ndown. \\n Meanwhile, Officer Tracy asked Vaccaro questions about \\nhis movements. Vaccaro expressed frustration to the officers \\nand mentioned that “people are trying to kill me.” Vaccaro \\nalso said that he merely “took [his] coat off” when he pulled \\nover. After saying that he was going to search the car, Officer \\nTracy asked Vaccaro seven times whether there was a gun in \\nthe car. Vaccaro responded once to reiterate that someone was \\ntrying to kill him and another time to say “I don’t have any‐\\nthing.” Officer Tracy added that Vaccaro appeared to be “ex‐\\ntremely nervous” and in a “real amped‐up state,” which con‐\\ntributed to the officer’s belief that Vaccaro was under the in‐\\nfluence of drugs. \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 3 \\n\\n As Officer Tracy questioned Vaccaro, Officer Frantal \\nfound a GPS monitor on Vaccaro’s ankle. Vaccaro confirmed \\nthat he was on supervision for “false imprisonment,” which \\nthe officers understood to be a felony. Officer Frantal did not \\ndiscover a weapon during the frisk. But both officers testified \\nthat they noticed a rifle case in the backseat. Neither officer \\nsaid anything, they testified, for fear of their safety; they did \\nnot want to alert an “agitated” Vaccaro that they had seen the \\ncase. \\n The officers then locked Vaccaro, still handcuffed, in the \\nbackseat of their squad car. Officer Frantal testified that Vac‐\\ncaro “did not appear to be fully stable” as he was led to the \\ncar. Officer Frantal called in the traffic violation to dispatch, \\nwhich drew back‐up officers to the scene. \\n Meanwhile, Officer Tracy returned to Vaccaro’s car and \\nbegan searching the front seats. Officer Frantal then ap‐\\nproached the vehicle. He soon remarked that he saw a rifle \\ncase in the backseat. The officers then removed a coat on top \\nof the rifle case and eventually confirmed that a rifle was in‐\\nside it. \\n The magistrate judge recommended that the district court \\ndeny Vaccaro’s motion to suppress. She credited the officers’ \\ntestimony that Vaccaro had made furtive movements because \\nVaccaro had admitted to taking off his jacket; therefore, she \\nsaid, the officers had reasonable suspicion to frisk Vaccaro for \\nweapons. But she discredited the officers’ testimony that they \\nhad seen a rifle case in the back of Vaccaro’s car before locking \\nhim in the squad car. The legality of the search therefore de‐\\npended on whether Vaccaro’s furtive gestures provided the \\nofficers with reasonable suspicion to search the passenger \\n\\f4 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\ncompartment of the car in addition to Vaccaro’s person. She \\nconcluded that they did. \\n Vaccaro objected to the magistrate judge’s report and rec‐\\nommendation, arguing that the immediate frisk was not jus‐\\ntified by reasonable suspicion and that the search of the car \\nwas not a lawful protective search under Long. The govern‐\\nment argued that both the frisk and car search were reasona‐\\nble. Vaccaro’s furtive movements justified the pat‐down \\nsearch, the government said, and locking Vaccaro in the squad \\ncar before the vehicle search enabled the officers to “avert[] a \\ncalamitous and explosive event.” \\n The district judge sided with the government and denied \\nVaccaro’s motion to suppress. The judge accepted the magis‐\\ntrate judge’s findings of fact and discredited the officers’ tes‐\\ntimony that they had observed the rifle case in the backseat \\nbefore they searched the car. But Vaccaro’s furtive movements \\nprovided the officers with reasonable suspicion that he had \\n“potentially armed himself or concealed a firearm,” which \\nwarranted a protective frisk. The district judge also concluded \\nthat the vehicle search was reasonable under Long. Although \\nVaccaro was handcuffed and locked in a squad car during the \\nsearch, he was not under arrest and could still be “dangerous” \\nor gain “immediate access” to weapons. While the officers’ \\n“stated bases for their suspicion of dangerousness … are \\nfew,” the judge observed, he was “constrained” to find that \\nthe officers had reasonable suspicion that Vaccaro was dan‐\\ngerous based on his “furtive movements,” the “relatively \\nlate” time of the stop, and the officers’ belief that Vaccaro was \\non drugs. Citing United States v. Arnold, 388 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. \\n2004), the judge further explained that, had “the traffic stop \\nresulted only in the issuance of a citation for running a red \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 5 \\n\\nlight, Vaccaro would have been permitted to re‐enter his ve‐\\nhicle.” \\n Vaccaro then conditionally pleaded guilty to knowingly \\npossessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He ex‐\\npressly reserved the right to challenge the denial of his motion \\nto suppress. \\n On appeal, Vaccaro renews his challenge to the pat‐down \\nfrisk and to the search of his car. We review the district court’s \\nunderlying factual findings for clear error, and we review de \\nnovo the district court’s legal conclusions, including its deter‐\\nminations of reasonable suspicion. See Ornelas v. United States, \\n517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Ruiz, 785 F.3d 1134, \\n1140–41 (7th Cir. 2015). \\n Vaccaro contends that the district court mistakenly cred‐\\nited the officers’ testimony that he made furtive movements \\nbefore exiting his car. This argument can be dispatched \\nquickly. Vaccaro protests that because the officers lied about \\nseeing the rifle case before locking him in the squad car, they \\nwere also incorrect (or untruthful) about his movements. But \\nthe district court may credit all or part of a witness’s testi‐\\nmony, especially when there is more than one permissible \\nreading of the evidence. See United States v. McGraw, 571 F.3d \\n624, 629 (7th Cir. 2009). And although Vaccaro maintains that \\nthe officers’ views through the rear window were obstructed \\nby the headrests and a temporary license card, the judge cred‐\\nited the officers’ testimony about the movements they ob‐\\nserved, bolstered by Vaccaro’s own admission that he took off \\nhis coat when he was pulled over. In light of Vaccaro’s admis‐\\nsion that he was indeed moving around, we are not left with \\na “definite and firm conviction” that the district court mistak‐\\nenly credited the officers’ testimony. See United States v. \\n\\f6 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nThurman, 889 F.3d 356, 363–64 (7th Cir. 2018) (finding no clear \\nerror when court faced with “he said versus they said” situa‐\\ntion). \\n Because Vaccaro cannot show that the district court clearly \\nerred in finding that he made furtive movements before leav‐\\ning the car, he cannot show that the pat‐down was unlawful. \\nVaccaro’s movements, including bending forward at the waist \\nand reaching toward the passenger and rear seats, reasonably \\nsuggested that he could be reaching for or concealing a \\nweapon. See United States v. Evans, 994 F.2d 317, 321 (7th Cir. \\n1993); United States v. Denney, 771 F.2d 318, 322 (7th Cir. 1985). \\nMoreover, Vaccaro appeared to be “having difficulty with \\nsomething that the officer could not see,” so the officers had \\nreasonable suspicion to order him out of the car and to per‐\\nform a pat‐down search. See United States v. Hendricks, 319 \\nF.3d 993, 1004 (7th Cir. 2003). Vaccaro offered an innocent ex‐\\nplanation for his movements, but an officer need not be abso‐\\nlutely certain that a suspect is armed before conducting a pro‐\\ntective pat‐down. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27; United States v. Ford, \\n872 F.3d 412, 415 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n Vaccaro also protests that the frisk was unreasonable be‐\\ncause the officers handcuffed him unnecessarily. Handcuffing \\na suspect during a pat‐down search for weapons should be \\nthe rare case. See United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088, 1094 (7th \\nCir. 1993). But there is “a limited set of circumstances in which \\nhandcuffs are appropriate without converting a Terry stop \\ninto a full arrest,” and “[c]hief among them is officer safety \\nand the possibility of the presence of a weapon.” Howell v. \\nSmith, 853 F.3d 892, 898 (7th Cir. 2017). Based on the officers’ \\nconcern that Vaccaro might have armed himself with a \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 7 \\n\\nweapon when they observed his “aggressive” movements, \\nhandcuffing him to conduct the frisk was reasonable. \\n Vaccaro next argues that the district court should have \\nsuppressed the rifle because the officers discovered it during \\nan unlawful search of his car. The government asserts that \\nMichigan v. Long justified the search. The Long exception to the \\nwarrant requirement permits the police to search a vehicle \\nwhen there are “genuine safety or evidentiary concerns.” Ar‐\\nizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 347 (2009). Long holds: “[T]he \\nsearch of the passenger compartment of an automobile, lim‐\\nited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hid‐\\nden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable \\nbelief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken to‐\\ngether with the rational inferences from those facts, reasona‐\\nbly warrant’ the officers in believing that the suspect is dan‐\\ngerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weap‐\\nons.” 463 U.S. at 1049–50 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21). In ap‐\\nplying this test, the key question is whether the search was \\nreasonable. See United States v. Correa, 908 F.3d 208, 217 (7th \\nCir. 2018). Long searches are grounded in concern for officer \\nsafety, see 463 U.S. at 1050, so if that concern is not present, \\nLong does not justify the search. See Gant, 556 U.S. at 338–39 \\n(discussing how searches incident to arrest are not reasonable \\nif concerns underlying exception to warrant requirement are \\nabsent). \\n Long’s first prong is satisfied here because the officers had \\nreasonable suspicion to believe that Vaccaro was dangerous \\nat the time they searched the car. In addition to Vaccaro’s fur‐\\ntive movements, the officers suspected that Vaccaro was un‐\\nder the influence of drugs, which gave them greater reason to \\nfear for their safety. See Long, 463 U.S. at 1050; United States v. \\n\\f8 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nKenerson, 585 F.3d 389, 392 (7th Cir. 2009). The officers also \\ndiscovered that Vaccaro was on probation for “false impris‐\\nonment,” and prior criminal activity is one factor that can con‐\\ntribute to reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Johnson, \\n427 F.3d 1053, 1057 (7th Cir. 2005). \\n The second prong of the Long inquiry requires the govern‐\\nment to establish that the officers reasonably suspected that \\nVaccaro could gain “immediate control” of weapons in the ve‐\\nhicle. See 463 U.S. at 1049–50; United States v. Stewart, 902 F.3d \\n664, 674 (7th Cir. 2018). Vaccaro claims that he could not have \\nimmediately obtained weapons because he was handcuffed \\nand locked in the back of a squad car. He insists that this case \\nis controlled by Arizona v. Gant, in which the Supreme Court \\nheld that officer‐safety concerns did not justify a search inci‐\\ndent to the arrest of a driver who had been handcuffed and \\nlocked in the back seat of a squad car. 556 U.S. at 335. The \\ngovernment, on the other hand, contends that Gant doesn’t \\ngovern because Vaccaro wasn’t arrested. When a suspect is \\nmerely detained, the government argues, United States v. Ar‐\\nnold controls the Long inquiry. 388 F.3d 237, 241 (7th Cir. \\n2004). \\n In Arnold, which we decided before Gant, the motorist \\nmade furtive movements upon being stopped by police. 388 \\nF.3d at 238. The officer asked him to step out of the vehicle, \\npatted him down, and “placed [the motorist] in the back seat \\nof the patrol car so that he could ensure that the traffic stop \\nwas completed safely.” Id. The officer then decided to have \\nthe car towed because the defendant had been driving with a \\nlearner’s permit without a licensed driver. Id. Before towing \\nthe vehicle, however, the officer searched it and discovered a \\nfirearm. Id. at 238–39. We held that officer‐safety concerns \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 9 \\n\\njustified the search under Long. Id. at 241. This was a traffic \\nstop, not an arrest, and the officer “may have permitted [the \\nmotorist] to gather items from the car before leaving the scene \\neven if the officer would not have permitted him to drive the \\nvehicle.” Id. We also noted that while the motorist was in the \\nback seat of the squad car, he was not handcuffed and there‐\\nfore “could have broken away from [the officer’s] control.” Id. \\n At oral argument, we asked the government whether Gant \\nlimited or overruled Arnold, and it maintained that Arnold is \\nstill good law. We agree. In Arnold, it was reasonable to be‐\\nlieve that the defendant, who was not under arrest, could \\nhave regained access to his vehicle. See id. at 238, 241; see also \\nGant, 556 U.S. at 352 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“In the no‐arrest \\ncase, the possibility of access to weapons in the vehicle always \\nexists, since the driver or passenger will be allowed to return \\nto the vehicle when the interrogation is completed.”). In Gant, \\nthe opposite was true: the defendants were not going to return \\nto the vehicle because they were arrested, handcuffed, and \\nlocked in squad cars. See 556 U.S. at 336–37, 344. The cases \\ntherefore do not conflict: Arnold applies to Terry stops; Gant \\napplies to arrests. \\n Thus, if Vaccaro had been under arrest, Gant would con‐\\ntrol. And if Vaccaro contended that he had been under arrest, \\nwe would face the difficult task of determining whether this \\nTerry stop became an arrest. See, e.g., United States v. Bullock, \\n632 F.3d 1004, 1016–18 (7th Cir. 2011). But Vaccaro does not \\nargue that the officers arrested him. To the contrary, he con‐\\nceded at oral argument that he had been subjected to a Terry \\nstop, not an arrest, and that he would have been allowed back \\nto his vehicle at the conclusion of his brief detention if the \\n\\f10 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nofficers had found no contraband.1 Vaccaro’s concession dic‐\\ntates the disposition of this case. By admitting that he would \\nhave been allowed to return to his car, Vaccaro conceded that \\nhe could have gained “immediate control of weapons” inside \\nthe vehicle. The search was therefore lawful under Long. 463 \\nU.S. at 1049; Arnold, 388 F.3d at 241. \\n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. \\n \\n \\n \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n \\n1 Vaccaro also conceded that he did not argue in the district court that his \\n\\ndetention amounted to an arrest, rather than a Terry stop.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4365768/\", \"author_raw\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"RIPPLE\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588515/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Travis Vaccaro\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 18‐1753 \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \n v. \n\nTRAVIS S. VACCARO, \n Defendant‐Appellant. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Eastern District of Wisconsin. \n No. 17‐CR‐84‐JPS — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit \nJudges. \n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Travis Vaccaro entered a condi‐\ntional guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. \n§ 922(g), preserving his right to appeal the denial of his mo‐\ntion to suppress the gun. Vaccaro contests both the pat‐down \nsearch that occurred seconds after police officers pulled over \nhis car and the search of the car that yielded the gun. The pat‐\ndown was lawful under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The \n\f2 No. 18‐1753 \n\nsweep of the car, which the district court upheld under Mich‐\nigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), is a closer call, but we con‐\nclude that it too was permissible. Accordingly, we affirm. \n Our summary of the facts is taken from an evidentiary \nhearing on Vaccaro’s motion to suppress. Milwaukee police \nofficers Aaron Frantal and Matthew Tracy stopped Vaccaro \nfor running a red light. Officer Frantal testified that Vaccaro \nstopped his car and made a “very ferocious move” by “bend‐\ning at the waist.” Vaccaro then leaned toward the passenger \nseat and “made another aggressive move with his entire top \ntorso and both arms into the back seat of the vehicle.” Officer \nTracy added that he saw Vaccaro “double over bending at the \nwaist” and then reach toward the passenger side of the car. \nOfficer Frantal testified that Vaccaro’s movements took under \nfive seconds. Afraid that Vaccaro might be trying to “gain con‐\ntrol of something from the back seat,” Officer Frantal drew his \ngun and ordered Vaccaro out of his car. The officers immedi‐\nately handcuffed Vaccaro, and Officer Frantal patted him \ndown. \n Meanwhile, Officer Tracy asked Vaccaro questions about \nhis movements. Vaccaro expressed frustration to the officers \nand mentioned that “people are trying to kill me.” Vaccaro \nalso said that he merely “took [his] coat off” when he pulled \nover. After saying that he was going to search the car, Officer \nTracy asked Vaccaro seven times whether there was a gun in \nthe car. Vaccaro responded once to reiterate that someone was \ntrying to kill him and another time to say “I don’t have any‐\nthing.” Officer Tracy added that Vaccaro appeared to be “ex‐\ntremely nervous” and in a “real amped‐up state,” which con‐\ntributed to the officer’s belief that Vaccaro was under the in‐\nfluence of drugs. \n\fNo. 18‐1753 3 \n\n As Officer Tracy questioned Vaccaro, Officer Frantal \nfound a GPS monitor on Vaccaro’s ankle. Vaccaro confirmed \nthat he was on supervision for “false imprisonment,” which \nthe officers understood to be a felony. Officer Frantal did not \ndiscover a weapon during the frisk. But both officers testified \nthat they noticed a rifle case in the backseat. Neither officer \nsaid anything, they testified, for fear of their safety; they did \nnot want to alert an “agitated” Vaccaro that they had seen the \ncase. \n The officers then locked Vaccaro, still handcuffed, in the \nbackseat of their squad car. Officer Frantal testified that Vac‐\ncaro “did not appear to be fully stable” as he was led to the \ncar. Officer Frantal called in the traffic violation to dispatch, \nwhich drew back‐up officers to the scene. \n Meanwhile, Officer Tracy returned to Vaccaro’s car and \nbegan searching the front seats. Officer Frantal then ap‐\nproached the vehicle. He soon remarked that he saw a rifle \ncase in the backseat. The officers then removed a coat on top \nof the rifle case and eventually confirmed that a rifle was in‐\nside it. \n The magistrate judge recommended that the district court \ndeny Vaccaro’s motion to suppress. She credited the officers’ \ntestimony that Vaccaro had made furtive movements because \nVaccaro had admitted to taking off his jacket; therefore, she \nsaid, the officers had reasonable suspicion to frisk Vaccaro for \nweapons. But she discredited the officers’ testimony that they \nhad seen a rifle case in the back of Vaccaro’s car before locking \nhim in the squad car. The legality of the search therefore de‐\npended on whether Vaccaro’s furtive gestures provided the \nofficers with reasonable suspicion to search the passenger \n\f4 No. 18‐1753 \n\ncompartment of the car in addition to Vaccaro’s person. She \nconcluded that they did. \n Vaccaro objected to the magistrate judge’s report and rec‐\nommendation, arguing that the immediate frisk was not jus‐\ntified by reasonable suspicion and that the search of the car \nwas not a lawful protective search under Long. The govern‐\nment argued that both the frisk and car search were reasona‐\nble. Vaccaro’s furtive movements justified the pat‐down \nsearch, the government said, and locking Vaccaro in the squad \ncar before the vehicle search enabled the officers to “avert[] a \ncalamitous and explosive event.” \n The district judge sided with the government and denied \nVaccaro’s motion to suppress. The judge accepted the magis‐\ntrate judge’s findings of fact and discredited the officers’ tes‐\ntimony that they had observed the rifle case in the backseat \nbefore they searched the car. But Vaccaro’s furtive movements \nprovided the officers with reasonable suspicion that he had \n“potentially armed himself or concealed a firearm,” which \nwarranted a protective frisk. The district judge also concluded \nthat the vehicle search was reasonable under Long. Although \nVaccaro was handcuffed and locked in a squad car during the \nsearch, he was not under arrest and could still be “dangerous” \nor gain “immediate access” to weapons. While the officers’ \n“stated bases for their suspicion of dangerousness … are \nfew,” the judge observed, he was “constrained” to find that \nthe officers had reasonable suspicion that Vaccaro was dan‐\ngerous based on his “furtive movements,” the “relatively \nlate” time of the stop, and the officers’ belief that Vaccaro was \non drugs. Citing United States v. Arnold, 388 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. \n2004), the judge further explained that, had “the traffic stop \nresulted only in the issuance of a citation for running a red \n\fNo. 18‐1753 5 \n\nlight, Vaccaro would have been permitted to re‐enter his ve‐\nhicle.” \n Vaccaro then conditionally pleaded guilty to knowingly \npossessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He ex‐\npressly reserved the right to challenge the denial of his motion \nto suppress. \n On appeal, Vaccaro renews his challenge to the pat‐down \nfrisk and to the search of his car. We review the district court’s \nunderlying factual findings for clear error, and we review de \nnovo the district court’s legal conclusions, including its deter‐\nminations of reasonable suspicion. See Ornelas v. United States, \n517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Ruiz, 785 F.3d 1134, \n1140–41 (7th Cir. 2015). \n Vaccaro contends that the district court mistakenly cred‐\nited the officers’ testimony that he made furtive movements \nbefore exiting his car. This argument can be dispatched \nquickly. Vaccaro protests that because the officers lied about \nseeing the rifle case before locking him in the squad car, they \nwere also incorrect (or untruthful) about his movements. But \nthe district court may credit all or part of a witness’s testi‐\nmony, especially when there is more than one permissible \nreading of the evidence. See United States v. McGraw, 571 F.3d \n624, 629 (7th Cir. 2009). And although Vaccaro maintains that \nthe officers’ views through the rear window were obstructed \nby the headrests and a temporary license card, the judge cred‐\nited the officers’ testimony about the movements they ob‐\nserved, bolstered by Vaccaro’s own admission that he took off \nhis coat when he was pulled over. In light of Vaccaro’s admis‐\nsion that he was indeed moving around, we are not left with \na “definite and firm conviction” that the district court mistak‐\nenly credited the officers’ testimony. See United States v. \n\f6 No. 18‐1753 \n\nThurman, 889 F.3d 356, 363–64 (7th Cir. 2018) (finding no clear \nerror when court faced with “he said versus they said” situa‐\ntion). \n Because Vaccaro cannot show that the district court clearly \nerred in finding that he made furtive movements before leav‐\ning the car, he cannot show that the pat‐down was unlawful. \nVaccaro’s movements, including bending forward at the waist \nand reaching toward the passenger and rear seats, reasonably \nsuggested that he could be reaching for or concealing a \nweapon. See United States v. Evans, 994 F.2d 317, 321 (7th Cir. \n1993); United States v. Denney, 771 F.2d 318, 322 (7th Cir. 1985). \nMoreover, Vaccaro appeared to be “having difficulty with \nsomething that the officer could not see,” so the officers had \nreasonable suspicion to order him out of the car and to per‐\nform a pat‐down search. See United States v. Hendricks, 319 \nF.3d 993, 1004 (7th Cir. 2003). Vaccaro offered an innocent ex‐\nplanation for his movements, but an officer need not be abso‐\nlutely certain that a suspect is armed before conducting a pro‐\ntective pat‐down. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27; United States v. Ford, \n872 F.3d 412, 415 (7th Cir. 2017). \n Vaccaro also protests that the frisk was unreasonable be‐\ncause the officers handcuffed him unnecessarily. Handcuffing \na suspect during a pat‐down search for weapons should be \nthe rare case. See United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088, 1094 (7th \nCir. 1993). But there is “a limited set of circumstances in which \nhandcuffs are appropriate without converting a Terry stop \ninto a full arrest,” and “[c]hief among them is officer safety \nand the possibility of the presence of a weapon.” Howell v. \nSmith, 853 F.3d 892, 898 (7th Cir. 2017). Based on the officers’ \nconcern that Vaccaro might have armed himself with a \n\fNo. 18‐1753 7 \n\nweapon when they observed his “aggressive” movements, \nhandcuffing him to conduct the frisk was reasonable. \n Vaccaro next argues that the district court should have \nsuppressed the rifle because the officers discovered it during \nan unlawful search of his car. The government asserts that \nMichigan v. Long justified the search. The Long exception to the \nwarrant requirement permits the police to search a vehicle \nwhen there are “genuine safety or evidentiary concerns.” Ar‐\nizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 347 (2009). Long holds: “[T]he \nsearch of the passenger compartment of an automobile, lim‐\nited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hid‐\nden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable \nbelief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken to‐\ngether with the rational inferences from those facts, reasona‐\nbly warrant’ the officers in believing that the suspect is dan‐\ngerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weap‐\nons.” 463 U.S. at 1049–50 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21). In ap‐\nplying this test, the key question is whether the search was \nreasonable. See United States v. Correa, 908 F.3d 208, 217 (7th \nCir. 2018). Long searches are grounded in concern for officer \nsafety, see 463 U.S. at 1050, so if that concern is not present, \nLong does not justify the search. See Gant, 556 U.S. at 338–39 \n(discussing how searches incident to arrest are not reasonable \nif concerns underlying exception to warrant requirement are \nabsent). \n Long’s first prong is satisfied here because the officers had \nreasonable suspicion to believe that Vaccaro was dangerous \nat the time they searched the car. In addition to Vaccaro’s fur‐\ntive movements, the officers suspected that Vaccaro was un‐\nder the influence of drugs, which gave them greater reason to \nfear for their safety. See Long, 463 U.S. at 1050; United States v. \n\f8 No. 18‐1753 \n\nKenerson, 585 F.3d 389, 392 (7th Cir. 2009). The officers also \ndiscovered that Vaccaro was on probation for “false impris‐\nonment,” and prior criminal activity is one factor that can con‐\ntribute to reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Johnson, \n427 F.3d 1053, 1057 (7th Cir. 2005). \n The second prong of the Long inquiry requires the govern‐\nment to establish that the officers reasonably suspected that \nVaccaro could gain “immediate control” of weapons in the ve‐\nhicle. See 463 U.S. at 1049–50; United States v. Stewart, 902 F.3d \n664, 674 (7th Cir. 2018). Vaccaro claims that he could not have \nimmediately obtained weapons because he was handcuffed \nand locked in the back of a squad car. He insists that this case \nis controlled by Arizona v. Gant, in which the Supreme Court \nheld that officer‐safety concerns did not justify a search inci‐\ndent to the arrest of a driver who had been handcuffed and \nlocked in the back seat of a squad car. 556 U.S. at 335. The \ngovernment, on the other hand, contends that Gant doesn’t \ngovern because Vaccaro wasn’t arrested. When a suspect is \nmerely detained, the government argues, United States v. Ar‐\nnold controls the Long inquiry. 388 F.3d 237, 241 (7th Cir. \n2004). \n In Arnold, which we decided before Gant, the motorist \nmade furtive movements upon being stopped by police. 388 \nF.3d at 238. The officer asked him to step out of the vehicle, \npatted him down, and “placed [the motorist] in the back seat \nof the patrol car so that he could ensure that the traffic stop \nwas completed safely.” Id. The officer then decided to have \nthe car towed because the defendant had been driving with a \nlearner’s permit without a licensed driver. Id. Before towing \nthe vehicle, however, the officer searched it and discovered a \nfirearm. Id. at 238–39. We held that officer‐safety concerns \n\fNo. 18‐1753 9 \n\njustified the search under Long. Id. at 241. This was a traffic \nstop, not an arrest, and the officer “may have permitted [the \nmotorist] to gather items from the car before leaving the scene \neven if the officer would not have permitted him to drive the \nvehicle.” Id. We also noted that while the motorist was in the \nback seat of the squad car, he was not handcuffed and there‐\nfore “could have broken away from [the officer’s] control.” Id. \n At oral argument, we asked the government whether Gant \nlimited or overruled Arnold, and it maintained that Arnold is \nstill good law. We agree. In Arnold, it was reasonable to be‐\nlieve that the defendant, who was not under arrest, could \nhave regained access to his vehicle. See id. at 238, 241; see also \nGant, 556 U.S. at 352 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“In the no‐arrest \ncase, the possibility of access to weapons in the vehicle always \nexists, since the driver or passenger will be allowed to return \nto the vehicle when the interrogation is completed.”). In Gant, \nthe opposite was true: the defendants were not going to return \nto the vehicle because they were arrested, handcuffed, and \nlocked in squad cars. See 556 U.S. at 336–37, 344. The cases \ntherefore do not conflict: Arnold applies to Terry stops; Gant \napplies to arrests. \n Thus, if Vaccaro had been under arrest, Gant would con‐\ntrol. And if Vaccaro contended that he had been under arrest, \nwe would face the difficult task of determining whether this \nTerry stop became an arrest. See, e.g., United States v. Bullock, \n632 F.3d 1004, 1016–18 (7th Cir. 2011). But Vaccaro does not \nargue that the officers arrested him. To the contrary, he con‐\nceded at oral argument that he had been subjected to a Terry \nstop, not an arrest, and that he would have been allowed back \nto his vehicle at the conclusion of his brief detention if the \n\f10 No. 18‐1753 \n\nofficers had found no contraband.1 Vaccaro’s concession dic‐\ntates the disposition of this case. By admitting that he would \nhave been allowed to return to his car, Vaccaro conceded that \nhe could have gained “immediate control of weapons” inside \nthe vehicle. The search was therefore lawful under Long. 463 \nU.S. at 1049; Arnold, 388 F.3d at 241. \n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n \n1 Vaccaro also conceded that he did not argue in the district court that his \n\ndetention amounted to an arrest, rather than a Terry stop.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Travis Vaccaro\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 18‐1753 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nTRAVIS S. VACCARO, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Eastern District of Wisconsin. \\n No. 17‐CR‐84‐JPS — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Travis Vaccaro entered a condi‐\\ntional guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. \\n§ 922(g), preserving his right to appeal the denial of his mo‐\\ntion to suppress the gun. Vaccaro contests both the pat‐down \\nsearch that occurred seconds after police officers pulled over \\nhis car and the search of the car that yielded the gun. The pat‐\\ndown was lawful under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The \\n\\f2 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nsweep of the car, which the district court upheld under Mich‐\\nigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), is a closer call, but we con‐\\nclude that it too was permissible. Accordingly, we affirm. \\n Our summary of the facts is taken from an evidentiary \\nhearing on Vaccaro’s motion to suppress. Milwaukee police \\nofficers Aaron Frantal and Matthew Tracy stopped Vaccaro \\nfor running a red light. Officer Frantal testified that Vaccaro \\nstopped his car and made a “very ferocious move” by “bend‐\\ning at the waist.” Vaccaro then leaned toward the passenger \\nseat and “made another aggressive move with his entire top \\ntorso and both arms into the back seat of the vehicle.” Officer \\nTracy added that he saw Vaccaro “double over bending at the \\nwaist” and then reach toward the passenger side of the car. \\nOfficer Frantal testified that Vaccaro’s movements took under \\nfive seconds. Afraid that Vaccaro might be trying to “gain con‐\\ntrol of something from the back seat,” Officer Frantal drew his \\ngun and ordered Vaccaro out of his car. The officers immedi‐\\nately handcuffed Vaccaro, and Officer Frantal patted him \\ndown. \\n Meanwhile, Officer Tracy asked Vaccaro questions about \\nhis movements. Vaccaro expressed frustration to the officers \\nand mentioned that “people are trying to kill me.” Vaccaro \\nalso said that he merely “took [his] coat off” when he pulled \\nover. After saying that he was going to search the car, Officer \\nTracy asked Vaccaro seven times whether there was a gun in \\nthe car. Vaccaro responded once to reiterate that someone was \\ntrying to kill him and another time to say “I don’t have any‐\\nthing.” Officer Tracy added that Vaccaro appeared to be “ex‐\\ntremely nervous” and in a “real amped‐up state,” which con‐\\ntributed to the officer’s belief that Vaccaro was under the in‐\\nfluence of drugs. \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 3 \\n\\n As Officer Tracy questioned Vaccaro, Officer Frantal \\nfound a GPS monitor on Vaccaro’s ankle. Vaccaro confirmed \\nthat he was on supervision for “false imprisonment,” which \\nthe officers understood to be a felony. Officer Frantal did not \\ndiscover a weapon during the frisk. But both officers testified \\nthat they noticed a rifle case in the backseat. Neither officer \\nsaid anything, they testified, for fear of their safety; they did \\nnot want to alert an “agitated” Vaccaro that they had seen the \\ncase. \\n The officers then locked Vaccaro, still handcuffed, in the \\nbackseat of their squad car. Officer Frantal testified that Vac‐\\ncaro “did not appear to be fully stable” as he was led to the \\ncar. Officer Frantal called in the traffic violation to dispatch, \\nwhich drew back‐up officers to the scene. \\n Meanwhile, Officer Tracy returned to Vaccaro’s car and \\nbegan searching the front seats. Officer Frantal then ap‐\\nproached the vehicle. He soon remarked that he saw a rifle \\ncase in the backseat. The officers then removed a coat on top \\nof the rifle case and eventually confirmed that a rifle was in‐\\nside it. \\n The magistrate judge recommended that the district court \\ndeny Vaccaro’s motion to suppress. She credited the officers’ \\ntestimony that Vaccaro had made furtive movements because \\nVaccaro had admitted to taking off his jacket; therefore, she \\nsaid, the officers had reasonable suspicion to frisk Vaccaro for \\nweapons. But she discredited the officers’ testimony that they \\nhad seen a rifle case in the back of Vaccaro’s car before locking \\nhim in the squad car. The legality of the search therefore de‐\\npended on whether Vaccaro’s furtive gestures provided the \\nofficers with reasonable suspicion to search the passenger \\n\\f4 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\ncompartment of the car in addition to Vaccaro’s person. She \\nconcluded that they did. \\n Vaccaro objected to the magistrate judge’s report and rec‐\\nommendation, arguing that the immediate frisk was not jus‐\\ntified by reasonable suspicion and that the search of the car \\nwas not a lawful protective search under Long. The govern‐\\nment argued that both the frisk and car search were reasona‐\\nble. Vaccaro’s furtive movements justified the pat‐down \\nsearch, the government said, and locking Vaccaro in the squad \\ncar before the vehicle search enabled the officers to “avert[] a \\ncalamitous and explosive event.” \\n The district judge sided with the government and denied \\nVaccaro’s motion to suppress. The judge accepted the magis‐\\ntrate judge’s findings of fact and discredited the officers’ tes‐\\ntimony that they had observed the rifle case in the backseat \\nbefore they searched the car. But Vaccaro’s furtive movements \\nprovided the officers with reasonable suspicion that he had \\n“potentially armed himself or concealed a firearm,” which \\nwarranted a protective frisk. The district judge also concluded \\nthat the vehicle search was reasonable under Long. Although \\nVaccaro was handcuffed and locked in a squad car during the \\nsearch, he was not under arrest and could still be “dangerous” \\nor gain “immediate access” to weapons. While the officers’ \\n“stated bases for their suspicion of dangerousness … are \\nfew,” the judge observed, he was “constrained” to find that \\nthe officers had reasonable suspicion that Vaccaro was dan‐\\ngerous based on his “furtive movements,” the “relatively \\nlate” time of the stop, and the officers’ belief that Vaccaro was \\non drugs. Citing United States v. Arnold, 388 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. \\n2004), the judge further explained that, had “the traffic stop \\nresulted only in the issuance of a citation for running a red \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 5 \\n\\nlight, Vaccaro would have been permitted to re‐enter his ve‐\\nhicle.” \\n Vaccaro then conditionally pleaded guilty to knowingly \\npossessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He ex‐\\npressly reserved the right to challenge the denial of his motion \\nto suppress. \\n On appeal, Vaccaro renews his challenge to the pat‐down \\nfrisk and to the search of his car. We review the district court’s \\nunderlying factual findings for clear error, and we review de \\nnovo the district court’s legal conclusions, including its deter‐\\nminations of reasonable suspicion. See Ornelas v. United States, \\n517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Ruiz, 785 F.3d 1134, \\n1140–41 (7th Cir. 2015). \\n Vaccaro contends that the district court mistakenly cred‐\\nited the officers’ testimony that he made furtive movements \\nbefore exiting his car. This argument can be dispatched \\nquickly. Vaccaro protests that because the officers lied about \\nseeing the rifle case before locking him in the squad car, they \\nwere also incorrect (or untruthful) about his movements. But \\nthe district court may credit all or part of a witness’s testi‐\\nmony, especially when there is more than one permissible \\nreading of the evidence. See United States v. McGraw, 571 F.3d \\n624, 629 (7th Cir. 2009). And although Vaccaro maintains that \\nthe officers’ views through the rear window were obstructed \\nby the headrests and a temporary license card, the judge cred‐\\nited the officers’ testimony about the movements they ob‐\\nserved, bolstered by Vaccaro’s own admission that he took off \\nhis coat when he was pulled over. In light of Vaccaro’s admis‐\\nsion that he was indeed moving around, we are not left with \\na “definite and firm conviction” that the district court mistak‐\\nenly credited the officers’ testimony. See United States v. \\n\\f6 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nThurman, 889 F.3d 356, 363–64 (7th Cir. 2018) (finding no clear \\nerror when court faced with “he said versus they said” situa‐\\ntion). \\n Because Vaccaro cannot show that the district court clearly \\nerred in finding that he made furtive movements before leav‐\\ning the car, he cannot show that the pat‐down was unlawful. \\nVaccaro’s movements, including bending forward at the waist \\nand reaching toward the passenger and rear seats, reasonably \\nsuggested that he could be reaching for or concealing a \\nweapon. See United States v. Evans, 994 F.2d 317, 321 (7th Cir. \\n1993); United States v. Denney, 771 F.2d 318, 322 (7th Cir. 1985). \\nMoreover, Vaccaro appeared to be “having difficulty with \\nsomething that the officer could not see,” so the officers had \\nreasonable suspicion to order him out of the car and to per‐\\nform a pat‐down search. See United States v. Hendricks, 319 \\nF.3d 993, 1004 (7th Cir. 2003). Vaccaro offered an innocent ex‐\\nplanation for his movements, but an officer need not be abso‐\\nlutely certain that a suspect is armed before conducting a pro‐\\ntective pat‐down. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27; United States v. Ford, \\n872 F.3d 412, 415 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n Vaccaro also protests that the frisk was unreasonable be‐\\ncause the officers handcuffed him unnecessarily. Handcuffing \\na suspect during a pat‐down search for weapons should be \\nthe rare case. See United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088, 1094 (7th \\nCir. 1993). But there is “a limited set of circumstances in which \\nhandcuffs are appropriate without converting a Terry stop \\ninto a full arrest,” and “[c]hief among them is officer safety \\nand the possibility of the presence of a weapon.” Howell v. \\nSmith, 853 F.3d 892, 898 (7th Cir. 2017). Based on the officers’ \\nconcern that Vaccaro might have armed himself with a \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 7 \\n\\nweapon when they observed his “aggressive” movements, \\nhandcuffing him to conduct the frisk was reasonable. \\n Vaccaro next argues that the district court should have \\nsuppressed the rifle because the officers discovered it during \\nan unlawful search of his car. The government asserts that \\nMichigan v. Long justified the search. The Long exception to the \\nwarrant requirement permits the police to search a vehicle \\nwhen there are “genuine safety or evidentiary concerns.” Ar‐\\nizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 347 (2009). Long holds: “[T]he \\nsearch of the passenger compartment of an automobile, lim‐\\nited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hid‐\\nden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable \\nbelief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken to‐\\ngether with the rational inferences from those facts, reasona‐\\nbly warrant’ the officers in believing that the suspect is dan‐\\ngerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weap‐\\nons.” 463 U.S. at 1049–50 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21). In ap‐\\nplying this test, the key question is whether the search was \\nreasonable. See United States v. Correa, 908 F.3d 208, 217 (7th \\nCir. 2018). Long searches are grounded in concern for officer \\nsafety, see 463 U.S. at 1050, so if that concern is not present, \\nLong does not justify the search. See Gant, 556 U.S. at 338–39 \\n(discussing how searches incident to arrest are not reasonable \\nif concerns underlying exception to warrant requirement are \\nabsent). \\n Long’s first prong is satisfied here because the officers had \\nreasonable suspicion to believe that Vaccaro was dangerous \\nat the time they searched the car. In addition to Vaccaro’s fur‐\\ntive movements, the officers suspected that Vaccaro was un‐\\nder the influence of drugs, which gave them greater reason to \\nfear for their safety. See Long, 463 U.S. at 1050; United States v. \\n\\f8 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nKenerson, 585 F.3d 389, 392 (7th Cir. 2009). The officers also \\ndiscovered that Vaccaro was on probation for “false impris‐\\nonment,” and prior criminal activity is one factor that can con‐\\ntribute to reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Johnson, \\n427 F.3d 1053, 1057 (7th Cir. 2005). \\n The second prong of the Long inquiry requires the govern‐\\nment to establish that the officers reasonably suspected that \\nVaccaro could gain “immediate control” of weapons in the ve‐\\nhicle. See 463 U.S. at 1049–50; United States v. Stewart, 902 F.3d \\n664, 674 (7th Cir. 2018). Vaccaro claims that he could not have \\nimmediately obtained weapons because he was handcuffed \\nand locked in the back of a squad car. He insists that this case \\nis controlled by Arizona v. Gant, in which the Supreme Court \\nheld that officer‐safety concerns did not justify a search inci‐\\ndent to the arrest of a driver who had been handcuffed and \\nlocked in the back seat of a squad car. 556 U.S. at 335. The \\ngovernment, on the other hand, contends that Gant doesn’t \\ngovern because Vaccaro wasn’t arrested. When a suspect is \\nmerely detained, the government argues, United States v. Ar‐\\nnold controls the Long inquiry. 388 F.3d 237, 241 (7th Cir. \\n2004). \\n In Arnold, which we decided before Gant, the motorist \\nmade furtive movements upon being stopped by police. 388 \\nF.3d at 238. The officer asked him to step out of the vehicle, \\npatted him down, and “placed [the motorist] in the back seat \\nof the patrol car so that he could ensure that the traffic stop \\nwas completed safely.” Id. The officer then decided to have \\nthe car towed because the defendant had been driving with a \\nlearner’s permit without a licensed driver. Id. Before towing \\nthe vehicle, however, the officer searched it and discovered a \\nfirearm. Id. at 238–39. We held that officer‐safety concerns \\n\\fNo. 18‐1753 9 \\n\\njustified the search under Long. Id. at 241. This was a traffic \\nstop, not an arrest, and the officer “may have permitted [the \\nmotorist] to gather items from the car before leaving the scene \\neven if the officer would not have permitted him to drive the \\nvehicle.” Id. We also noted that while the motorist was in the \\nback seat of the squad car, he was not handcuffed and there‐\\nfore “could have broken away from [the officer’s] control.” Id. \\n At oral argument, we asked the government whether Gant \\nlimited or overruled Arnold, and it maintained that Arnold is \\nstill good law. We agree. In Arnold, it was reasonable to be‐\\nlieve that the defendant, who was not under arrest, could \\nhave regained access to his vehicle. See id. at 238, 241; see also \\nGant, 556 U.S. at 352 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“In the no‐arrest \\ncase, the possibility of access to weapons in the vehicle always \\nexists, since the driver or passenger will be allowed to return \\nto the vehicle when the interrogation is completed.”). In Gant, \\nthe opposite was true: the defendants were not going to return \\nto the vehicle because they were arrested, handcuffed, and \\nlocked in squad cars. See 556 U.S. at 336–37, 344. The cases \\ntherefore do not conflict: Arnold applies to Terry stops; Gant \\napplies to arrests. \\n Thus, if Vaccaro had been under arrest, Gant would con‐\\ntrol. And if Vaccaro contended that he had been under arrest, \\nwe would face the difficult task of determining whether this \\nTerry stop became an arrest. See, e.g., United States v. Bullock, \\n632 F.3d 1004, 1016–18 (7th Cir. 2011). But Vaccaro does not \\nargue that the officers arrested him. To the contrary, he con‐\\nceded at oral argument that he had been subjected to a Terry \\nstop, not an arrest, and that he would have been allowed back \\nto his vehicle at the conclusion of his brief detention if the \\n\\f10 No. 18‐1753 \\n\\nofficers had found no contraband.1 Vaccaro’s concession dic‐\\ntates the disposition of this case. By admitting that he would \\nhave been allowed to return to his car, Vaccaro conceded that \\nhe could have gained “immediate control of weapons” inside \\nthe vehicle. The search was therefore lawful under Long. 463 \\nU.S. at 1049; Arnold, 388 F.3d at 241. \\n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. \\n \\n \\n \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n \\n1 Vaccaro also conceded that he did not argue in the district court that his \\n\\ndetention amounted to an arrest, rather than a Terry stop.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":672,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588517,"string":"4,588,517"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anastacia v. MACLIN, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Anastacia Maclin"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2158"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Bauer, Kanne, Brennan\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2158\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nANASTACIA V. MACLIN,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\\n No. 2:16-cr-00179-PPS-JEM-1 — Philip P. Simon, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 4, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, KANNE, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. After a jury found Anastacia Vann\\nMaclin guilty of two counts of Medicaid theft she was sen-\\ntenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. Maclin embezzled funds\\nfrom Dr. Farzana Khan’s medical practice after being hired to\\nhandle its electronic billing. Maclin raises two issues on appeal.\\nFirst, is whether a comment by a prospective juror (“Prospec-\\n\\f2 No. 18-2158\\n\\ntive Juror No. 11”) that Dr. Khan had a “home for autism”\\nrequired voir dire to be restarted with a new jury panel.\\nSecond, is whether the district court properly applied a\\nvulnerable victim sentence enhancement based on Dr. Khan’s\\ncomputer illiteracy. For the following reasons, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In January 2015, Dr. Khan hired Maclin to handle the\\nbusiness side of Khan’s medical practice, Iliana Psychiatric\\nAssociates (“Iliana”). In April 2015, Maclin used Dr. Khan’s\\nusername and password to log into the Medicaid system to\\nredirect Iliana’s Medicaid reimbursements from Dr. Khan’s\\nChase business account to Maclin’s personal account at Centier\\nBank, and changed the reimbursement method from paper\\nchecks to electronic fund transfers. Maclin also enrolled Iliana\\nin Medicaid’s electronic incentive program, against the wishes\\nof Dr. Khan and without her knowledge, and caused a one-\\ntime bonus of $21,250 intended for healthcare providers who\\ndigitized their paperwork to be deposited in Maclin’s personal\\naccount. In total, more than $80,000 was deposited into\\nMaclin’s account from April 2015 through July 2016.\\n Iliana’s tax preparer noticed the missing funds and in-\\nformed Dr. Khan. With the help of another employee, Angela\\nRuiz, Dr. Khan reached out to Medicaid to investigate. Since\\nthe user information had been changed, it took Dr. Khan and\\nRuiz several days to unlock the Medicaid account and discover\\nthat the money had been diverted to Maclin’s personal\\naccount. Dr. Khan fired Maclin and filed a police report. A\\ngrand jury returned a two-count indictment against Maclin for\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 3\\n\\nstealing Medicaid reimbursements and the incentive check in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 669.\\n Before trial, Maclin filed a motion in limine to preclude the\\ngovernment, or any of its witnesses, from mentioning that\\nDr. Khan had an adult child with severe autism. The district\\ncourt granted the motion in part, and directed the government\\nto “sanitize” Dr. Khan’s family circumstances to avoid drawing\\nparticular attention to her autistic son.\\n During voir dire prospective jurors were asked whether\\nthey knew any of the witnesses. The witness list included\\nDr. Khan but did not indicate she was the victim in the case.\\nTen jurors were chosen after each declared under oath that\\nthey could be impartial and decide the case on the evidence\\npresented. Prospective Juror No. 11 stated that she knew\\nDr. Khan because she worked as the administrator of “plan-\\nning and building” in Schererville. Prospective Juror No. 11\\nstated that she “worked with [Dr. Khan] on developing her\\nproperty. She has a home for autism.” Prospective Juror No. 11\\nwas excused from the jury because she knew Dr. Khan. Two\\nmore jurors were selected; both swore they could be impartial.\\n At the end of voir dire, Maclin filed a motion for a mistrial.\\nMaclin sought to restart voir dire with a new jury panel,\\narguing that Prospective Juror No. 11's statement was prejudi-\\ncial in light of the ruling on the motion in limine. The district\\ncourt denied the motion and offered a curative instruction,\\nwhich Maclin’s defense counsel declined.\\n Prior to the trial the jury was instructed that their “first\\nduty is to decide the facts from the evidence that you see and\\nhear here in court” without letting “sympathy, prejudice, fear,\\n\\f4 No. 18-2158\\n\\nor public opinion influence you in any way.” The court told the\\njury to base their verdict “exclusively on the law as I give it to\\nyou and the evidence that was presented in the courtroom.”\\nThe court gave similar instructions to the jury a second time,\\nafter closing arguments, stating that “evidence includes only\\nwhat the witnesses said when they were testifying under oath,\\nthe exhibits that I allowed into evidence, and the stipulations\\nthat the lawyers agreed to … . Nothing else is evidence.”\\n The jury found Maclin guilty of both counts. Maclin again\\nmoved for a mistrial, making the same arguments as her earlier\\nmotion. The district court denied the motion concluding that\\n“the fleeting remark, with little in the way of context or\\nexplanation, could not possibly have had created such sympa-\\nthy for Dr. Kahn as to have a prejudicial effect on the jury's\\nverdict finding Maclin guilty.” United States v. Maclin, 2017 U.S.\\nDist. LEXIS 208125, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 19, 2017).\\n The Presentence Report recommended Maclin receive a\\ntwo-level sentencing enhancement because Dr. Khan was a\\n“vulnerable victim” on the basis of her computer illiteracy. At\\nthe sentencing hearing Dr. Khan testified that she did not\\nunderstand how to use a computer, did not bank electronically,\\ndid not send her own e-mails, and did not even use ATMs.\\nDr. Khan further testified that Maclin knew of her complete\\ninability to use computers. Maclin objected to the enhancement\\narguing that Dr. Khan was not vulnerable.\\n The district court overruled the objection and applied the\\nenhancement. The district court stated it had never seen\\nanyone as technologically unsophisticated as Dr. Khan, and\\nconcluded that this made her especially vulnerable to Maclin’s\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 5\\n\\ncomputer-based theft scheme. The court noted that the\\nenhancement resulted in an advisory sentence of 15 to 21\\nmonths, which overlapped with the 10 to 16 month range that\\nwould have been recommended without the enhancement. The\\ncourt found that Maclin had preyed on Dr. Khan and showed\\nno contrition. The court also considered the fact that Maclin\\nwas still paying restitution for a prior offense where she did\\n“basically, the same thing to another physician.” The court\\nimposed a 15-month sentence, noting that the sentence would\\nhave been the same without the vulnerable victim enhance-\\nment because “15 months captures about correctly the gravity\\nof the case.”\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n Rule 33 authorizes the court to “vacate any judgment and\\ngrant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R.\\nCrim. P. 33. The applicable standard under Rule 33 requires a\\nnew trial “only if there is a reasonable possibility that the trial\\nerror had a prejudicial effect on the jury's verdict.” United\\nStates v. Flournoy, 842 F.3d 524, 530 (7th Cir. 2016). We review\\nthe district court’s decision to deny motions for a mistrial and\\nmotions for a new trial for abuses of discretion. See United\\nStates v. Lawrence, 788 F.3d 234, 243 (7th Cir. 2015); Flournoy,\\n842 F.3d at 528. “Each case must turn on its special facts, and in\\neach case the crucial factor is the degree and pervasiveness of\\nthe prejudicial influence possibly resulting from the jury's\\nexposure to the extraneous material.” United States v. Wiesner,\\n789 F.2d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v.\\nWeisman, 736 F.2d 421, 424 (7th Cir. 1984)).\\n\\f6 No. 18-2158\\n\\n Maclin relies extensively on Mach v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 630\\n(9th Cir. 1998). In Mach, the defendant was on trial for sexually\\nabusing a child. Id. at 631–32. The potential juror, a social\\nworker, stated that every time her clients alleged sexual\\nassault, the allegations were later confirmed to be true. Id. at\\n632. The juror repeated the statement several times, and also\\nstated that she had taken psychology courses and worked\\nclosely with psychologists and psychiatrists. Id. The Ninth\\nCircuit reversed the verdict based on the “nature of [the]\\nstatements, the certainty with which they were delivered, the\\nyears of experience that led to them, and the number of times\\nthat they were repeated” and presumed “that at least one juror\\nwas tainted and entered into jury deliberations with the\\nconviction that children simply never lie about being sexually\\nabused.” Id. at 633.\\n This case could not be more different than Mach.\\nProspective Juror No. 11 provided a vague factual statement\\nabout Dr. Khan, not an opinion about the trustworthiness of\\nany witness. Prospective Juror No. 11's statement did not\\nimplicate Maclin’s guilt and was entirely unrelated to the\\ncrimes Maclin was charged with. The statement was neither\\nmaterial to an issue in the case, nor was it inflammatory in any\\nway. It is implausible that the statement could have had a\\nprejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict. The district court was\\nnot required under these circumstances to empanel a new\\nvenire. It was also not required to question each impaneled\\njuror regarding their ability to be impartial given the nature of\\nthe statement and the clear jury instructions given prior to trial\\nand after the closing arguments.\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 7\\n\\n As to the vulnerable victim enhancement, the court found\\nthat Dr. Khan was financially and technologically unsophisti-\\ncated. This made her particularly vulnerable to Maclin’s\\nscheme to use the electronic Medicaid billing system to divert\\nfunds to her own personal account. Maclin argues that the\\nrecord does not support the district court’s conclusion that\\nDr. Khan was financially unsophisticated, and that Dr. Khan\\nwas able to overcome any technological illiteracy by meeting\\nwith people at her bank directly. Maclin relies heavily on\\nUnited States v. Esterman, 324 F.3d 565, 573–74 (7th Cir. 2003).\\nThere, this court found it was a clear error to apply a vulnera-\\nble victim enhancement based solely on a victim’s limited\\nEnglish proficiency, where the victim was financially sophisti-\\ncated and monitored his finances through interpreters.\\n A vulnerable victim is defined by the Guidelines as\\n“someone who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or\\nmental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible\\nto the criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1. We review the\\ndistrict court’s application of the vulnerable victim enhance-\\nment for clear error. Whether a victim is vulnerable “is the type\\nof fact which the trial court is uniquely well-positioned to\\nassess because the trial judge can observe the demeanor of the\\ndefendant and witnesses and has an opportunity to review and\\nanalyze each of the documents and exhibits and hear the\\ntestimony while observing the mental, physical, and emotional\\nstates of the victims in order to assist him with assessing the\\ndamages inflicted upon them.” United States v. Christiansen, 594\\nF.3d 571, 574 (7th Cir. 2010)(internal citations omitted). There\\nmust be “some link between the vulnerability and the charac-\\nteristic in question.” United States v. Lewis, 842 F.3d 467, 476\\n\\f8 No. 18-2158\\n\\n(7th Cir. 2016) (vulnerable victim enhancement warranted\\nwhere defendant abused trust of victims who “lacked basic\\ncomputer skills”); see also United States v. Sullivan, 765 F.3d\\n712, 717 (7th Cir. 2014) (evidence supported enhancement\\nbecause it showed the defendants targeted victims who were\\nelderly and financially unsophisticated); United States v. Parolin,\\n239 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2001) (vulnerable victim enhancement\\nappropriate due to defendant’s knowledge of victims’ lack of\\nfinancial sophistication).\\n The district court found that Dr. Khan was remarkably\\ncomputer illiterate. She did not “do e-mail” and her attempts\\nto access computer systems routinely resulted in failure\\nbecause she inadvertently triggered security mechanisms. The\\ncourt noted that Dr. Khan “totally entrusted this to Ms. Maclin,\\nthe operation of the financial side of her business, and\\nMs. Maclin knew that.” Maclin used that knowledge to\\ndefraud Dr. Khan using the electronic billing system. The\\ndistrict court noted that Dr. Khan was intelligent, and that it\\nwas a “close call” but concluded that “literally—in 15 years, I\\nhave never seen somebody so technologically unsophisticated\\nas this victim to the point where she literally has never\\nused e-mail even. She doesn’t have the ability to check her\\naccounts.”\\n This Court held in Esterman that it was clear error by the\\ndistrict court to “consider[] “the linguistic factor in isolation.”\\nEsterman, 324 F.3d at 573–74. Esterman argued that the district\\ncourt improperly ignored the victim’s “sophistication as a\\nbusinessperson, his ability to communicate with the bank\\nthrough an interpreter, his ability to dispatch deputies, and his\\nfamiliarity with the legal system as evidenced by his filing of\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 9\\n\\ncriminal and civil complaints.” Id. Unlike in Esterman, the\\ndistrict court here considered the mitigating factor that\\nDr. Khan was generally an intelligent person, but found she\\nwas so technologically illiterate that it made her particularly\\nvulnerable to electronic billing fraud. While Dr. Khan could\\nmeet in person at the bank to go over her accounts, had she\\nbeen able to check her accounts electronically she would have\\ndiscovered the fraud much sooner.\\n Additionally, the district court noted the 15-month sentence\\nwas within Guidelines range whether or not the vulnerable\\nvictim enhancement was applied, and declared 15 months\\nwould be the sentence “irrespective of how that decision fell\\nout.” The court stated that the enhancement “wouldn’t have\\nchanged my judgment on the case one way or the other”\\nbecause “15 months captures about correctly the gravity of the\\ncase” considering Maclin stole a substantial sum of money\\nfrom Dr. Khan while still paying restitution for an almost\\nidentical crime.\\n “A district court facing a tricky but technical issue under\\nthe Guidelines may exercise its discretion under section 3553(a)\\nand may spell out on the record whether and to what extent\\nthe resolution of the guideline issue affected the court's final\\ndecision on the sentence.” United States v. Snyder, 865 F.3d 490,\\n500 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Lopez, 634 F.3d 948,\\n954 (7th Cir. 2011)); see, e.g., United States v. Sanner, 565 F.3d\\n400, 406 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming an above-guideline sentence\\nwithout regard for the correct resolution of guideline issue);\\nUnited States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660, 666–67 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(holding a guideline error was harmless based on judge's\\nexplanation of alternative basis for same sentence). We find no\\n\\f10 No. 18-2158\\n\\nerror in the district court’s application of the vulnerable victim\\nenhancement and, regardless, any error would have been\\nharmless.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court’s denial of the motions for mistrial, and\\nthe district court’s sentencing, are hereby AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4365770/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588517/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anastacia v. MACLIN, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2158\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\n\nANASTACIA V. MACLIN,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\n No. 2:16-cr-00179-PPS-JEM-1 — Philip P. Simon, Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED DECEMBER 4, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, KANNE, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. After a jury found Anastacia Vann\nMaclin guilty of two counts of Medicaid theft she was sen-\ntenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. Maclin embezzled funds\nfrom Dr. Farzana Khan’s medical practice after being hired to\nhandle its electronic billing. Maclin raises two issues on appeal.\nFirst, is whether a comment by a prospective juror (“Prospec-\n\f2 No. 18-2158\n\ntive Juror No. 11”) that Dr. Khan had a “home for autism”\nrequired voir dire to be restarted with a new jury panel.\nSecond, is whether the district court properly applied a\nvulnerable victim sentence enhancement based on Dr. Khan’s\ncomputer illiteracy. For the following reasons, we affirm.\n I. BACKGROUND\n In January 2015, Dr. Khan hired Maclin to handle the\nbusiness side of Khan’s medical practice, Iliana Psychiatric\nAssociates (“Iliana”). In April 2015, Maclin used Dr. Khan’s\nusername and password to log into the Medicaid system to\nredirect Iliana’s Medicaid reimbursements from Dr. Khan’s\nChase business account to Maclin’s personal account at Centier\nBank, and changed the reimbursement method from paper\nchecks to electronic fund transfers. Maclin also enrolled Iliana\nin Medicaid’s electronic incentive program, against the wishes\nof Dr. Khan and without her knowledge, and caused a one-\ntime bonus of $21,250 intended for healthcare providers who\ndigitized their paperwork to be deposited in Maclin’s personal\naccount. In total, more than $80,000 was deposited into\nMaclin’s account from April 2015 through July 2016.\n Iliana’s tax preparer noticed the missing funds and in-\nformed Dr. Khan. With the help of another employee, Angela\nRuiz, Dr. Khan reached out to Medicaid to investigate. Since\nthe user information had been changed, it took Dr. Khan and\nRuiz several days to unlock the Medicaid account and discover\nthat the money had been diverted to Maclin’s personal\naccount. Dr. Khan fired Maclin and filed a police report. A\ngrand jury returned a two-count indictment against Maclin for\n\fNo. 18-2158 3\n\nstealing Medicaid reimbursements and the incentive check in\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 669.\n Before trial, Maclin filed a motion in limine to preclude the\ngovernment, or any of its witnesses, from mentioning that\nDr. Khan had an adult child with severe autism. The district\ncourt granted the motion in part, and directed the government\nto “sanitize” Dr. Khan’s family circumstances to avoid drawing\nparticular attention to her autistic son.\n During voir dire prospective jurors were asked whether\nthey knew any of the witnesses. The witness list included\nDr. Khan but did not indicate she was the victim in the case.\nTen jurors were chosen after each declared under oath that\nthey could be impartial and decide the case on the evidence\npresented. Prospective Juror No. 11 stated that she knew\nDr. Khan because she worked as the administrator of “plan-\nning and building” in Schererville. Prospective Juror No. 11\nstated that she “worked with [Dr. Khan] on developing her\nproperty. She has a home for autism.” Prospective Juror No. 11\nwas excused from the jury because she knew Dr. Khan. Two\nmore jurors were selected; both swore they could be impartial.\n At the end of voir dire, Maclin filed a motion for a mistrial.\nMaclin sought to restart voir dire with a new jury panel,\narguing that Prospective Juror No. 11's statement was prejudi-\ncial in light of the ruling on the motion in limine. The district\ncourt denied the motion and offered a curative instruction,\nwhich Maclin’s defense counsel declined.\n Prior to the trial the jury was instructed that their “first\nduty is to decide the facts from the evidence that you see and\nhear here in court” without letting “sympathy, prejudice, fear,\n\f4 No. 18-2158\n\nor public opinion influence you in any way.” The court told the\njury to base their verdict “exclusively on the law as I give it to\nyou and the evidence that was presented in the courtroom.”\nThe court gave similar instructions to the jury a second time,\nafter closing arguments, stating that “evidence includes only\nwhat the witnesses said when they were testifying under oath,\nthe exhibits that I allowed into evidence, and the stipulations\nthat the lawyers agreed to … . Nothing else is evidence.”\n The jury found Maclin guilty of both counts. Maclin again\nmoved for a mistrial, making the same arguments as her earlier\nmotion. The district court denied the motion concluding that\n“the fleeting remark, with little in the way of context or\nexplanation, could not possibly have had created such sympa-\nthy for Dr. Kahn as to have a prejudicial effect on the jury's\nverdict finding Maclin guilty.” United States v. Maclin, 2017 U.S.\nDist. LEXIS 208125, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 19, 2017).\n The Presentence Report recommended Maclin receive a\ntwo-level sentencing enhancement because Dr. Khan was a\n“vulnerable victim” on the basis of her computer illiteracy. At\nthe sentencing hearing Dr. Khan testified that she did not\nunderstand how to use a computer, did not bank electronically,\ndid not send her own e-mails, and did not even use ATMs.\nDr. Khan further testified that Maclin knew of her complete\ninability to use computers. Maclin objected to the enhancement\narguing that Dr. Khan was not vulnerable.\n The district court overruled the objection and applied the\nenhancement. The district court stated it had never seen\nanyone as technologically unsophisticated as Dr. Khan, and\nconcluded that this made her especially vulnerable to Maclin’s\n\fNo. 18-2158 5\n\ncomputer-based theft scheme. The court noted that the\nenhancement resulted in an advisory sentence of 15 to 21\nmonths, which overlapped with the 10 to 16 month range that\nwould have been recommended without the enhancement. The\ncourt found that Maclin had preyed on Dr. Khan and showed\nno contrition. The court also considered the fact that Maclin\nwas still paying restitution for a prior offense where she did\n“basically, the same thing to another physician.” The court\nimposed a 15-month sentence, noting that the sentence would\nhave been the same without the vulnerable victim enhance-\nment because “15 months captures about correctly the gravity\nof the case.”\n II. ANALYSIS\n Rule 33 authorizes the court to “vacate any judgment and\ngrant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R.\nCrim. P. 33. The applicable standard under Rule 33 requires a\nnew trial “only if there is a reasonable possibility that the trial\nerror had a prejudicial effect on the jury's verdict.” United\nStates v. Flournoy, 842 F.3d 524, 530 (7th Cir. 2016). We review\nthe district court’s decision to deny motions for a mistrial and\nmotions for a new trial for abuses of discretion. See United\nStates v. Lawrence, 788 F.3d 234, 243 (7th Cir. 2015); Flournoy,\n842 F.3d at 528. “Each case must turn on its special facts, and in\neach case the crucial factor is the degree and pervasiveness of\nthe prejudicial influence possibly resulting from the jury's\nexposure to the extraneous material.” United States v. Wiesner,\n789 F.2d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v.\nWeisman, 736 F.2d 421, 424 (7th Cir. 1984)).\n\f6 No. 18-2158\n\n Maclin relies extensively on Mach v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 630\n(9th Cir. 1998). In Mach, the defendant was on trial for sexually\nabusing a child. Id. at 631–32. The potential juror, a social\nworker, stated that every time her clients alleged sexual\nassault, the allegations were later confirmed to be true. Id. at\n632. The juror repeated the statement several times, and also\nstated that she had taken psychology courses and worked\nclosely with psychologists and psychiatrists. Id. The Ninth\nCircuit reversed the verdict based on the “nature of [the]\nstatements, the certainty with which they were delivered, the\nyears of experience that led to them, and the number of times\nthat they were repeated” and presumed “that at least one juror\nwas tainted and entered into jury deliberations with the\nconviction that children simply never lie about being sexually\nabused.” Id. at 633.\n This case could not be more different than Mach.\nProspective Juror No. 11 provided a vague factual statement\nabout Dr. Khan, not an opinion about the trustworthiness of\nany witness. Prospective Juror No. 11's statement did not\nimplicate Maclin’s guilt and was entirely unrelated to the\ncrimes Maclin was charged with. The statement was neither\nmaterial to an issue in the case, nor was it inflammatory in any\nway. It is implausible that the statement could have had a\nprejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict. The district court was\nnot required under these circumstances to empanel a new\nvenire. It was also not required to question each impaneled\njuror regarding their ability to be impartial given the nature of\nthe statement and the clear jury instructions given prior to trial\nand after the closing arguments.\n\fNo. 18-2158 7\n\n As to the vulnerable victim enhancement, the court found\nthat Dr. Khan was financially and technologically unsophisti-\ncated. This made her particularly vulnerable to Maclin’s\nscheme to use the electronic Medicaid billing system to divert\nfunds to her own personal account. Maclin argues that the\nrecord does not support the district court’s conclusion that\nDr. Khan was financially unsophisticated, and that Dr. Khan\nwas able to overcome any technological illiteracy by meeting\nwith people at her bank directly. Maclin relies heavily on\nUnited States v. Esterman, 324 F.3d 565, 573–74 (7th Cir. 2003).\nThere, this court found it was a clear error to apply a vulnera-\nble victim enhancement based solely on a victim’s limited\nEnglish proficiency, where the victim was financially sophisti-\ncated and monitored his finances through interpreters.\n A vulnerable victim is defined by the Guidelines as\n“someone who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or\nmental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible\nto the criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1. We review the\ndistrict court’s application of the vulnerable victim enhance-\nment for clear error. Whether a victim is vulnerable “is the type\nof fact which the trial court is uniquely well-positioned to\nassess because the trial judge can observe the demeanor of the\ndefendant and witnesses and has an opportunity to review and\nanalyze each of the documents and exhibits and hear the\ntestimony while observing the mental, physical, and emotional\nstates of the victims in order to assist him with assessing the\ndamages inflicted upon them.” United States v. Christiansen, 594\nF.3d 571, 574 (7th Cir. 2010)(internal citations omitted). There\nmust be “some link between the vulnerability and the charac-\nteristic in question.” United States v. Lewis, 842 F.3d 467, 476\n\f8 No. 18-2158\n\n(7th Cir. 2016) (vulnerable victim enhancement warranted\nwhere defendant abused trust of victims who “lacked basic\ncomputer skills”); see also United States v. Sullivan, 765 F.3d\n712, 717 (7th Cir. 2014) (evidence supported enhancement\nbecause it showed the defendants targeted victims who were\nelderly and financially unsophisticated); United States v. Parolin,\n239 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2001) (vulnerable victim enhancement\nappropriate due to defendant’s knowledge of victims’ lack of\nfinancial sophistication).\n The district court found that Dr. Khan was remarkably\ncomputer illiterate. She did not “do e-mail” and her attempts\nto access computer systems routinely resulted in failure\nbecause she inadvertently triggered security mechanisms. The\ncourt noted that Dr. Khan “totally entrusted this to Ms. Maclin,\nthe operation of the financial side of her business, and\nMs. Maclin knew that.” Maclin used that knowledge to\ndefraud Dr. Khan using the electronic billing system. The\ndistrict court noted that Dr. Khan was intelligent, and that it\nwas a “close call” but concluded that “literally—in 15 years, I\nhave never seen somebody so technologically unsophisticated\nas this victim to the point where she literally has never\nused e-mail even. She doesn’t have the ability to check her\naccounts.”\n This Court held in Esterman that it was clear error by the\ndistrict court to “consider[] “the linguistic factor in isolation.”\nEsterman, 324 F.3d at 573–74. Esterman argued that the district\ncourt improperly ignored the victim’s “sophistication as a\nbusinessperson, his ability to communicate with the bank\nthrough an interpreter, his ability to dispatch deputies, and his\nfamiliarity with the legal system as evidenced by his filing of\n\fNo. 18-2158 9\n\ncriminal and civil complaints.” Id. Unlike in Esterman, the\ndistrict court here considered the mitigating factor that\nDr. Khan was generally an intelligent person, but found she\nwas so technologically illiterate that it made her particularly\nvulnerable to electronic billing fraud. While Dr. Khan could\nmeet in person at the bank to go over her accounts, had she\nbeen able to check her accounts electronically she would have\ndiscovered the fraud much sooner.\n Additionally, the district court noted the 15-month sentence\nwas within Guidelines range whether or not the vulnerable\nvictim enhancement was applied, and declared 15 months\nwould be the sentence “irrespective of how that decision fell\nout.” The court stated that the enhancement “wouldn’t have\nchanged my judgment on the case one way or the other”\nbecause “15 months captures about correctly the gravity of the\ncase” considering Maclin stole a substantial sum of money\nfrom Dr. Khan while still paying restitution for an almost\nidentical crime.\n “A district court facing a tricky but technical issue under\nthe Guidelines may exercise its discretion under section 3553(a)\nand may spell out on the record whether and to what extent\nthe resolution of the guideline issue affected the court's final\ndecision on the sentence.” United States v. Snyder, 865 F.3d 490,\n500 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Lopez, 634 F.3d 948,\n954 (7th Cir. 2011)); see, e.g., United States v. Sanner, 565 F.3d\n400, 406 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming an above-guideline sentence\nwithout regard for the correct resolution of guideline issue);\nUnited States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660, 666–67 (7th Cir. 2009)\n(holding a guideline error was harmless based on judge's\nexplanation of alternative basis for same sentence). We find no\n\f10 No. 18-2158\n\nerror in the district court’s application of the vulnerable victim\nenhancement and, regardless, any error would have been\nharmless.\n III. CONCLUSION\n The district court’s denial of the motions for mistrial, and\nthe district court’s sentencing, are hereby AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anastacia v. MACLIN, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2158\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nANASTACIA V. MACLIN,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\\n No. 2:16-cr-00179-PPS-JEM-1 — Philip P. Simon, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 4, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, KANNE, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. After a jury found Anastacia Vann\\nMaclin guilty of two counts of Medicaid theft she was sen-\\ntenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. Maclin embezzled funds\\nfrom Dr. Farzana Khan’s medical practice after being hired to\\nhandle its electronic billing. Maclin raises two issues on appeal.\\nFirst, is whether a comment by a prospective juror (“Prospec-\\n\\f2 No. 18-2158\\n\\ntive Juror No. 11”) that Dr. Khan had a “home for autism”\\nrequired voir dire to be restarted with a new jury panel.\\nSecond, is whether the district court properly applied a\\nvulnerable victim sentence enhancement based on Dr. Khan’s\\ncomputer illiteracy. For the following reasons, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In January 2015, Dr. Khan hired Maclin to handle the\\nbusiness side of Khan’s medical practice, Iliana Psychiatric\\nAssociates (“Iliana”). In April 2015, Maclin used Dr. Khan’s\\nusername and password to log into the Medicaid system to\\nredirect Iliana’s Medicaid reimbursements from Dr. Khan’s\\nChase business account to Maclin’s personal account at Centier\\nBank, and changed the reimbursement method from paper\\nchecks to electronic fund transfers. Maclin also enrolled Iliana\\nin Medicaid’s electronic incentive program, against the wishes\\nof Dr. Khan and without her knowledge, and caused a one-\\ntime bonus of $21,250 intended for healthcare providers who\\ndigitized their paperwork to be deposited in Maclin’s personal\\naccount. In total, more than $80,000 was deposited into\\nMaclin’s account from April 2015 through July 2016.\\n Iliana’s tax preparer noticed the missing funds and in-\\nformed Dr. Khan. With the help of another employee, Angela\\nRuiz, Dr. Khan reached out to Medicaid to investigate. Since\\nthe user information had been changed, it took Dr. Khan and\\nRuiz several days to unlock the Medicaid account and discover\\nthat the money had been diverted to Maclin’s personal\\naccount. Dr. Khan fired Maclin and filed a police report. A\\ngrand jury returned a two-count indictment against Maclin for\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 3\\n\\nstealing Medicaid reimbursements and the incentive check in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 669.\\n Before trial, Maclin filed a motion in limine to preclude the\\ngovernment, or any of its witnesses, from mentioning that\\nDr. Khan had an adult child with severe autism. The district\\ncourt granted the motion in part, and directed the government\\nto “sanitize” Dr. Khan’s family circumstances to avoid drawing\\nparticular attention to her autistic son.\\n During voir dire prospective jurors were asked whether\\nthey knew any of the witnesses. The witness list included\\nDr. Khan but did not indicate she was the victim in the case.\\nTen jurors were chosen after each declared under oath that\\nthey could be impartial and decide the case on the evidence\\npresented. Prospective Juror No. 11 stated that she knew\\nDr. Khan because she worked as the administrator of “plan-\\nning and building” in Schererville. Prospective Juror No. 11\\nstated that she “worked with [Dr. Khan] on developing her\\nproperty. She has a home for autism.” Prospective Juror No. 11\\nwas excused from the jury because she knew Dr. Khan. Two\\nmore jurors were selected; both swore they could be impartial.\\n At the end of voir dire, Maclin filed a motion for a mistrial.\\nMaclin sought to restart voir dire with a new jury panel,\\narguing that Prospective Juror No. 11's statement was prejudi-\\ncial in light of the ruling on the motion in limine. The district\\ncourt denied the motion and offered a curative instruction,\\nwhich Maclin’s defense counsel declined.\\n Prior to the trial the jury was instructed that their “first\\nduty is to decide the facts from the evidence that you see and\\nhear here in court” without letting “sympathy, prejudice, fear,\\n\\f4 No. 18-2158\\n\\nor public opinion influence you in any way.” The court told the\\njury to base their verdict “exclusively on the law as I give it to\\nyou and the evidence that was presented in the courtroom.”\\nThe court gave similar instructions to the jury a second time,\\nafter closing arguments, stating that “evidence includes only\\nwhat the witnesses said when they were testifying under oath,\\nthe exhibits that I allowed into evidence, and the stipulations\\nthat the lawyers agreed to … . Nothing else is evidence.”\\n The jury found Maclin guilty of both counts. Maclin again\\nmoved for a mistrial, making the same arguments as her earlier\\nmotion. The district court denied the motion concluding that\\n“the fleeting remark, with little in the way of context or\\nexplanation, could not possibly have had created such sympa-\\nthy for Dr. Kahn as to have a prejudicial effect on the jury's\\nverdict finding Maclin guilty.” United States v. Maclin, 2017 U.S.\\nDist. LEXIS 208125, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 19, 2017).\\n The Presentence Report recommended Maclin receive a\\ntwo-level sentencing enhancement because Dr. Khan was a\\n“vulnerable victim” on the basis of her computer illiteracy. At\\nthe sentencing hearing Dr. Khan testified that she did not\\nunderstand how to use a computer, did not bank electronically,\\ndid not send her own e-mails, and did not even use ATMs.\\nDr. Khan further testified that Maclin knew of her complete\\ninability to use computers. Maclin objected to the enhancement\\narguing that Dr. Khan was not vulnerable.\\n The district court overruled the objection and applied the\\nenhancement. The district court stated it had never seen\\nanyone as technologically unsophisticated as Dr. Khan, and\\nconcluded that this made her especially vulnerable to Maclin’s\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 5\\n\\ncomputer-based theft scheme. The court noted that the\\nenhancement resulted in an advisory sentence of 15 to 21\\nmonths, which overlapped with the 10 to 16 month range that\\nwould have been recommended without the enhancement. The\\ncourt found that Maclin had preyed on Dr. Khan and showed\\nno contrition. The court also considered the fact that Maclin\\nwas still paying restitution for a prior offense where she did\\n“basically, the same thing to another physician.” The court\\nimposed a 15-month sentence, noting that the sentence would\\nhave been the same without the vulnerable victim enhance-\\nment because “15 months captures about correctly the gravity\\nof the case.”\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n Rule 33 authorizes the court to “vacate any judgment and\\ngrant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R.\\nCrim. P. 33. The applicable standard under Rule 33 requires a\\nnew trial “only if there is a reasonable possibility that the trial\\nerror had a prejudicial effect on the jury's verdict.” United\\nStates v. Flournoy, 842 F.3d 524, 530 (7th Cir. 2016). We review\\nthe district court’s decision to deny motions for a mistrial and\\nmotions for a new trial for abuses of discretion. See United\\nStates v. Lawrence, 788 F.3d 234, 243 (7th Cir. 2015); Flournoy,\\n842 F.3d at 528. “Each case must turn on its special facts, and in\\neach case the crucial factor is the degree and pervasiveness of\\nthe prejudicial influence possibly resulting from the jury's\\nexposure to the extraneous material.” United States v. Wiesner,\\n789 F.2d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v.\\nWeisman, 736 F.2d 421, 424 (7th Cir. 1984)).\\n\\f6 No. 18-2158\\n\\n Maclin relies extensively on Mach v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 630\\n(9th Cir. 1998). In Mach, the defendant was on trial for sexually\\nabusing a child. Id. at 631–32. The potential juror, a social\\nworker, stated that every time her clients alleged sexual\\nassault, the allegations were later confirmed to be true. Id. at\\n632. The juror repeated the statement several times, and also\\nstated that she had taken psychology courses and worked\\nclosely with psychologists and psychiatrists. Id. The Ninth\\nCircuit reversed the verdict based on the “nature of [the]\\nstatements, the certainty with which they were delivered, the\\nyears of experience that led to them, and the number of times\\nthat they were repeated” and presumed “that at least one juror\\nwas tainted and entered into jury deliberations with the\\nconviction that children simply never lie about being sexually\\nabused.” Id. at 633.\\n This case could not be more different than Mach.\\nProspective Juror No. 11 provided a vague factual statement\\nabout Dr. Khan, not an opinion about the trustworthiness of\\nany witness. Prospective Juror No. 11's statement did not\\nimplicate Maclin’s guilt and was entirely unrelated to the\\ncrimes Maclin was charged with. The statement was neither\\nmaterial to an issue in the case, nor was it inflammatory in any\\nway. It is implausible that the statement could have had a\\nprejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict. The district court was\\nnot required under these circumstances to empanel a new\\nvenire. It was also not required to question each impaneled\\njuror regarding their ability to be impartial given the nature of\\nthe statement and the clear jury instructions given prior to trial\\nand after the closing arguments.\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 7\\n\\n As to the vulnerable victim enhancement, the court found\\nthat Dr. Khan was financially and technologically unsophisti-\\ncated. This made her particularly vulnerable to Maclin’s\\nscheme to use the electronic Medicaid billing system to divert\\nfunds to her own personal account. Maclin argues that the\\nrecord does not support the district court’s conclusion that\\nDr. Khan was financially unsophisticated, and that Dr. Khan\\nwas able to overcome any technological illiteracy by meeting\\nwith people at her bank directly. Maclin relies heavily on\\nUnited States v. Esterman, 324 F.3d 565, 573–74 (7th Cir. 2003).\\nThere, this court found it was a clear error to apply a vulnera-\\nble victim enhancement based solely on a victim’s limited\\nEnglish proficiency, where the victim was financially sophisti-\\ncated and monitored his finances through interpreters.\\n A vulnerable victim is defined by the Guidelines as\\n“someone who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or\\nmental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible\\nto the criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1. We review the\\ndistrict court’s application of the vulnerable victim enhance-\\nment for clear error. Whether a victim is vulnerable “is the type\\nof fact which the trial court is uniquely well-positioned to\\nassess because the trial judge can observe the demeanor of the\\ndefendant and witnesses and has an opportunity to review and\\nanalyze each of the documents and exhibits and hear the\\ntestimony while observing the mental, physical, and emotional\\nstates of the victims in order to assist him with assessing the\\ndamages inflicted upon them.” United States v. Christiansen, 594\\nF.3d 571, 574 (7th Cir. 2010)(internal citations omitted). There\\nmust be “some link between the vulnerability and the charac-\\nteristic in question.” United States v. Lewis, 842 F.3d 467, 476\\n\\f8 No. 18-2158\\n\\n(7th Cir. 2016) (vulnerable victim enhancement warranted\\nwhere defendant abused trust of victims who “lacked basic\\ncomputer skills”); see also United States v. Sullivan, 765 F.3d\\n712, 717 (7th Cir. 2014) (evidence supported enhancement\\nbecause it showed the defendants targeted victims who were\\nelderly and financially unsophisticated); United States v. Parolin,\\n239 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2001) (vulnerable victim enhancement\\nappropriate due to defendant’s knowledge of victims’ lack of\\nfinancial sophistication).\\n The district court found that Dr. Khan was remarkably\\ncomputer illiterate. She did not “do e-mail” and her attempts\\nto access computer systems routinely resulted in failure\\nbecause she inadvertently triggered security mechanisms. The\\ncourt noted that Dr. Khan “totally entrusted this to Ms. Maclin,\\nthe operation of the financial side of her business, and\\nMs. Maclin knew that.” Maclin used that knowledge to\\ndefraud Dr. Khan using the electronic billing system. The\\ndistrict court noted that Dr. Khan was intelligent, and that it\\nwas a “close call” but concluded that “literally—in 15 years, I\\nhave never seen somebody so technologically unsophisticated\\nas this victim to the point where she literally has never\\nused e-mail even. She doesn’t have the ability to check her\\naccounts.”\\n This Court held in Esterman that it was clear error by the\\ndistrict court to “consider[] “the linguistic factor in isolation.”\\nEsterman, 324 F.3d at 573–74. Esterman argued that the district\\ncourt improperly ignored the victim’s “sophistication as a\\nbusinessperson, his ability to communicate with the bank\\nthrough an interpreter, his ability to dispatch deputies, and his\\nfamiliarity with the legal system as evidenced by his filing of\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 9\\n\\ncriminal and civil complaints.” Id. Unlike in Esterman, the\\ndistrict court here considered the mitigating factor that\\nDr. Khan was generally an intelligent person, but found she\\nwas so technologically illiterate that it made her particularly\\nvulnerable to electronic billing fraud. While Dr. Khan could\\nmeet in person at the bank to go over her accounts, had she\\nbeen able to check her accounts electronically she would have\\ndiscovered the fraud much sooner.\\n Additionally, the district court noted the 15-month sentence\\nwas within Guidelines range whether or not the vulnerable\\nvictim enhancement was applied, and declared 15 months\\nwould be the sentence “irrespective of how that decision fell\\nout.” The court stated that the enhancement “wouldn’t have\\nchanged my judgment on the case one way or the other”\\nbecause “15 months captures about correctly the gravity of the\\ncase” considering Maclin stole a substantial sum of money\\nfrom Dr. Khan while still paying restitution for an almost\\nidentical crime.\\n “A district court facing a tricky but technical issue under\\nthe Guidelines may exercise its discretion under section 3553(a)\\nand may spell out on the record whether and to what extent\\nthe resolution of the guideline issue affected the court's final\\ndecision on the sentence.” United States v. Snyder, 865 F.3d 490,\\n500 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Lopez, 634 F.3d 948,\\n954 (7th Cir. 2011)); see, e.g., United States v. Sanner, 565 F.3d\\n400, 406 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming an above-guideline sentence\\nwithout regard for the correct resolution of guideline issue);\\nUnited States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660, 666–67 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(holding a guideline error was harmless based on judge's\\nexplanation of alternative basis for same sentence). We find no\\n\\f10 No. 18-2158\\n\\nerror in the district court’s application of the vulnerable victim\\nenhancement and, regardless, any error would have been\\nharmless.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court’s denial of the motions for mistrial, and\\nthe district court’s sentencing, are hereby AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":673,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588518,"string":"4,588,518"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Diane RHONE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Diane Rhone v. Medical Business Bureau, LLC"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3408"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Wood, Easterbrook, Rovner\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3408\\nDIANE RHONE,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nMEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 C 5215 — Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. This case is about character—\\nthe character of a debt. A debt collector must not make any\\n“false representation” about “the character, amount, or legal\\nstatus of any debt”. 15 U.S.C. §1692e(2)(A). A district court\\nconcluded that a debt collector misrepresented a debt’s\\n“character” by reporting to a credit bureau that the debtor\\nhad nine unpaid bills of $60 rather than one of $540. We\\n\\f2 No. 17-3408\\n\\nhold, to the contrary, that arithmetic does not affect a debt’s\\n“character.” The statutory word “amount” rather than the\\nword “character” is what governs reporting the debt’s size.\\n Diane Rhone received physical therapy from Illinois\\nBone and Joint Institute, which billed her $134 for each ses-\\nsion. Insurance covered all but a $60 co-pay per session.\\nRhone did not remit her part of the bills, however, and the\\nInstitute turned to the Medical Business Bureau for debt col-\\nlection. After three years of dunning legers did not work, the\\nBureau reported to Equifax that Rhone owes nine debts of\\n$60 each. That led to this suit, in which Rhone contends that\\nthe Bureau had to report the aggregate debt of $540 rather\\nthan nine $60 debts. Judge Der-Yeghiayan agreed with that\\nsubmission. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177800 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25,\\n2017). After he retired the case was assigned to Judge Ken-\\ndall, who imposed a $1,000 penalty. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\\n188433 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2018).\\n The credit report was factually correct. Rhone incurred\\nnine debts of $60 each. Judge Der-Yeghiayan did not explain\\nwhy the difference between 1 × $540 and 9 × $60 misrepre-\\nsents the “character” of a debt. Neither the district judge nor\\nRhone offered a definition of the word “character.” Asked at\\noral argument whether a debt collector should report one\\ndebt, or two, if a person buys two cars from a single dealer\\nand does not pay for either car, Rhone’s lawyer replied: “It\\nwould depend.” Counsel told us that a judge should consid-\\ner “all the facts and circumstances” once litigation is under-\\nway. Yet what a court (or for that mager a debt collector)\\nneeds is a rule of law to apply to those facts and circum-\\nstances. This is a statutory suit, not a common-law action.\\nThe word “character” either requires aggregation of debts\\n\\fNo. 17-3408 3\\n\\narising from multiple transactions with a single entity, or it\\ndoes not.\\n The statute refers separately to the “character” and the\\n“amount” of a debt. Rhone does not contend that the Bureau\\nmisrepresented the “amount” of the debt by telling Equifax\\nthat Rhone owes $60 for each of nine medical treatments. We\\ncan imagine a regulation specifying whether debts to a sin-\\ngle creditor should be aggregated (or perhaps reported both\\nsingly and in the aggregate)—consistency contributes to clar-\\nity—but Rhone does not point to such a regulation, nor\\ncould we find one. One benefit of identifying each amount\\nseparately is that a debtor then can identify exactly which\\ntransactions are at issue. If the Bureau had reported one $540\\ndebt, Rhone might well have asserted that the report was\\nmisleading—after all, she does not owe $540 for any transac-\\ntion. Per-transaction reporting also shows whether some of\\nthe debts are stale (that is, whether the statute of limitations\\nbars collection). Consumers and credit bureaus alike may\\nfind that information valuable.\\n A search through decisions from this court and the other\\ncourts of appeals did not turn up any discussing whether\\naggregation (or not) of all amounts owed to a single creditor\\nconcerns the “character” of a debt. Indeed, few decisions\\ndiscuss the meaning of that word in any debt-related con-\\ntext. In this circuit, Fields v. Wilbur Law Firm, P.C., 383 F.3d\\n562 (7th Cir. 2004), holds that presenting a debt plus agor-\\nneys’ fees as a single undifferentiated sum misstates the\\ndebt’s character, while Hahn v. Triumph Partnerships LLC, 557\\nF.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2009), holds that combining principal and\\ninterest does not do so. Agorneys’ fees differ in character\\nfrom the main debt, while interest does not. Elsewhere,\\n\\f4 No. 17-3408\\n\\nDonohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.\\n2010), agrees with Hahn, while Miller v. Javitch, Block &\\nRathbone, 561 F.3d 588, 592–94 (6th Cir. 2009), holds that de-\\nscribing a debt as a loan rather than an account receivable\\ndoes not misstate its character. None of these decisions holds\\nor implies that it magers to a debt’s “character” whether\\namounts due for individual purchases from a single mer-\\nchant are stated separately or as a total.\\n The absence of authoritative or even persuasive guidance\\nleaves us on our own. To our ears, “character” sounds like a\\nreference to the kind of obligation. (That is essentially how\\nFields heard it, too.) A secured auto loan would be of one\\ncharacter, an unsecured credit-card debt another, a judgment\\ndebt a third, and a subordinated debenture (an instrument\\njunior by contract) a fourth. Keeping these kinds of obliga-\\ntion distinct reduces the potential for confusion about their\\nnature and relative priority. But the number of transactions\\nbetween a debtor and a single merchant does not affect the\\ngenesis, nature, or priority of the debt and so does not con-\\ncern its character. The statute names “character, amount, or\\nlegal status” as distinct agributes, and it would undercut this\\ndisjunction to treat arithmetic as concerning the debt’s\\n“character” rather than its “amount.”\\n The district court’s opinion, and the parties’ briefs, de-\\nvote considerable agention to whether the Bureau made a\\nproper report of “tradelines.” This is a word that Equifax us-\\nes in the conduct of its own business. It does not appear in\\nthe statute or any relevant regulation. (The word “tradeline”\\nor the phrase “trade line” appears four times in the Code of\\nFederal Regulations. None of the regulations defines it, and\\nnone concerns debt collectors’ reports to credit bureaus.)\\n\\fNo. 17-3408 5\\n\\nWhether Equifax has a grievance against Medical Business\\nBureau—and whether Equifax offers debtors some remedy if\\ncreditors or debt collectors err in implementing Equifax’s\\npolicies—are neither here nor there for our purposes.\\nEquifax might have a duty to correct its report if an error\\nwith respect to the number of tradelines affects a consumer’s\\ncredit rating. See 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a). But this suit rests on\\n§1692e(2)(A), not on Equifax’s vocabulary.\\n Medical Business Bureau did not misstate the “character”\\nof Rhone’s debt to the Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, so the\\njudgment of the district court is\\n REVERSED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4365771/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588518/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Diane RHONE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3408\nDIANE RHONE,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\nMEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16 C 5215 — Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER,\nCircuit Judges.\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. This case is about character—\nthe character of a debt. A debt collector must not make any\n“false representation” about “the character, amount, or legal\nstatus of any debt”. 15 U.S.C. §1692e(2)(A). A district court\nconcluded that a debt collector misrepresented a debt’s\n“character” by reporting to a credit bureau that the debtor\nhad nine unpaid bills of $60 rather than one of $540. We\n\f2 No. 17-3408\n\nhold, to the contrary, that arithmetic does not affect a debt’s\n“character.” The statutory word “amount” rather than the\nword “character” is what governs reporting the debt’s size.\n Diane Rhone received physical therapy from Illinois\nBone and Joint Institute, which billed her $134 for each ses-\nsion. Insurance covered all but a $60 co-pay per session.\nRhone did not remit her part of the bills, however, and the\nInstitute turned to the Medical Business Bureau for debt col-\nlection. After three years of dunning legers did not work, the\nBureau reported to Equifax that Rhone owes nine debts of\n$60 each. That led to this suit, in which Rhone contends that\nthe Bureau had to report the aggregate debt of $540 rather\nthan nine $60 debts. Judge Der-Yeghiayan agreed with that\nsubmission. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177800 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25,\n2017). After he retired the case was assigned to Judge Ken-\ndall, who imposed a $1,000 penalty. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n188433 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2018).\n The credit report was factually correct. Rhone incurred\nnine debts of $60 each. Judge Der-Yeghiayan did not explain\nwhy the difference between 1 × $540 and 9 × $60 misrepre-\nsents the “character” of a debt. Neither the district judge nor\nRhone offered a definition of the word “character.” Asked at\noral argument whether a debt collector should report one\ndebt, or two, if a person buys two cars from a single dealer\nand does not pay for either car, Rhone’s lawyer replied: “It\nwould depend.” Counsel told us that a judge should consid-\ner “all the facts and circumstances” once litigation is under-\nway. Yet what a court (or for that mager a debt collector)\nneeds is a rule of law to apply to those facts and circum-\nstances. This is a statutory suit, not a common-law action.\nThe word “character” either requires aggregation of debts\n\fNo. 17-3408 3\n\narising from multiple transactions with a single entity, or it\ndoes not.\n The statute refers separately to the “character” and the\n“amount” of a debt. Rhone does not contend that the Bureau\nmisrepresented the “amount” of the debt by telling Equifax\nthat Rhone owes $60 for each of nine medical treatments. We\ncan imagine a regulation specifying whether debts to a sin-\ngle creditor should be aggregated (or perhaps reported both\nsingly and in the aggregate)—consistency contributes to clar-\nity—but Rhone does not point to such a regulation, nor\ncould we find one. One benefit of identifying each amount\nseparately is that a debtor then can identify exactly which\ntransactions are at issue. If the Bureau had reported one $540\ndebt, Rhone might well have asserted that the report was\nmisleading—after all, she does not owe $540 for any transac-\ntion. Per-transaction reporting also shows whether some of\nthe debts are stale (that is, whether the statute of limitations\nbars collection). Consumers and credit bureaus alike may\nfind that information valuable.\n A search through decisions from this court and the other\ncourts of appeals did not turn up any discussing whether\naggregation (or not) of all amounts owed to a single creditor\nconcerns the “character” of a debt. Indeed, few decisions\ndiscuss the meaning of that word in any debt-related con-\ntext. In this circuit, Fields v. Wilbur Law Firm, P.C., 383 F.3d\n562 (7th Cir. 2004), holds that presenting a debt plus agor-\nneys’ fees as a single undifferentiated sum misstates the\ndebt’s character, while Hahn v. Triumph Partnerships LLC, 557\nF.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2009), holds that combining principal and\ninterest does not do so. Agorneys’ fees differ in character\nfrom the main debt, while interest does not. Elsewhere,\n\f4 No. 17-3408\n\nDonohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.\n2010), agrees with Hahn, while Miller v. Javitch, Block &\nRathbone, 561 F.3d 588, 592–94 (6th Cir. 2009), holds that de-\nscribing a debt as a loan rather than an account receivable\ndoes not misstate its character. None of these decisions holds\nor implies that it magers to a debt’s “character” whether\namounts due for individual purchases from a single mer-\nchant are stated separately or as a total.\n The absence of authoritative or even persuasive guidance\nleaves us on our own. To our ears, “character” sounds like a\nreference to the kind of obligation. (That is essentially how\nFields heard it, too.) A secured auto loan would be of one\ncharacter, an unsecured credit-card debt another, a judgment\ndebt a third, and a subordinated debenture (an instrument\njunior by contract) a fourth. Keeping these kinds of obliga-\ntion distinct reduces the potential for confusion about their\nnature and relative priority. But the number of transactions\nbetween a debtor and a single merchant does not affect the\ngenesis, nature, or priority of the debt and so does not con-\ncern its character. The statute names “character, amount, or\nlegal status” as distinct agributes, and it would undercut this\ndisjunction to treat arithmetic as concerning the debt’s\n“character” rather than its “amount.”\n The district court’s opinion, and the parties’ briefs, de-\nvote considerable agention to whether the Bureau made a\nproper report of “tradelines.” This is a word that Equifax us-\nes in the conduct of its own business. It does not appear in\nthe statute or any relevant regulation. (The word “tradeline”\nor the phrase “trade line” appears four times in the Code of\nFederal Regulations. None of the regulations defines it, and\nnone concerns debt collectors’ reports to credit bureaus.)\n\fNo. 17-3408 5\n\nWhether Equifax has a grievance against Medical Business\nBureau—and whether Equifax offers debtors some remedy if\ncreditors or debt collectors err in implementing Equifax’s\npolicies—are neither here nor there for our purposes.\nEquifax might have a duty to correct its report if an error\nwith respect to the number of tradelines affects a consumer’s\ncredit rating. See 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a). But this suit rests on\n§1692e(2)(A), not on Equifax’s vocabulary.\n Medical Business Bureau did not misstate the “character”\nof Rhone’s debt to the Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, so the\njudgment of the district court is\n REVERSED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Diane RHONE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3408\\nDIANE RHONE,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nMEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 C 5215 — Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. This case is about character—\\nthe character of a debt. A debt collector must not make any\\n“false representation” about “the character, amount, or legal\\nstatus of any debt”. 15 U.S.C. §1692e(2)(A). A district court\\nconcluded that a debt collector misrepresented a debt’s\\n“character” by reporting to a credit bureau that the debtor\\nhad nine unpaid bills of $60 rather than one of $540. We\\n\\f2 No. 17-3408\\n\\nhold, to the contrary, that arithmetic does not affect a debt’s\\n“character.” The statutory word “amount” rather than the\\nword “character” is what governs reporting the debt’s size.\\n Diane Rhone received physical therapy from Illinois\\nBone and Joint Institute, which billed her $134 for each ses-\\nsion. Insurance covered all but a $60 co-pay per session.\\nRhone did not remit her part of the bills, however, and the\\nInstitute turned to the Medical Business Bureau for debt col-\\nlection. After three years of dunning legers did not work, the\\nBureau reported to Equifax that Rhone owes nine debts of\\n$60 each. That led to this suit, in which Rhone contends that\\nthe Bureau had to report the aggregate debt of $540 rather\\nthan nine $60 debts. Judge Der-Yeghiayan agreed with that\\nsubmission. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177800 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25,\\n2017). After he retired the case was assigned to Judge Ken-\\ndall, who imposed a $1,000 penalty. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\\n188433 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2018).\\n The credit report was factually correct. Rhone incurred\\nnine debts of $60 each. Judge Der-Yeghiayan did not explain\\nwhy the difference between 1 × $540 and 9 × $60 misrepre-\\nsents the “character” of a debt. Neither the district judge nor\\nRhone offered a definition of the word “character.” Asked at\\noral argument whether a debt collector should report one\\ndebt, or two, if a person buys two cars from a single dealer\\nand does not pay for either car, Rhone’s lawyer replied: “It\\nwould depend.” Counsel told us that a judge should consid-\\ner “all the facts and circumstances” once litigation is under-\\nway. Yet what a court (or for that mager a debt collector)\\nneeds is a rule of law to apply to those facts and circum-\\nstances. This is a statutory suit, not a common-law action.\\nThe word “character” either requires aggregation of debts\\n\\fNo. 17-3408 3\\n\\narising from multiple transactions with a single entity, or it\\ndoes not.\\n The statute refers separately to the “character” and the\\n“amount” of a debt. Rhone does not contend that the Bureau\\nmisrepresented the “amount” of the debt by telling Equifax\\nthat Rhone owes $60 for each of nine medical treatments. We\\ncan imagine a regulation specifying whether debts to a sin-\\ngle creditor should be aggregated (or perhaps reported both\\nsingly and in the aggregate)—consistency contributes to clar-\\nity—but Rhone does not point to such a regulation, nor\\ncould we find one. One benefit of identifying each amount\\nseparately is that a debtor then can identify exactly which\\ntransactions are at issue. If the Bureau had reported one $540\\ndebt, Rhone might well have asserted that the report was\\nmisleading—after all, she does not owe $540 for any transac-\\ntion. Per-transaction reporting also shows whether some of\\nthe debts are stale (that is, whether the statute of limitations\\nbars collection). Consumers and credit bureaus alike may\\nfind that information valuable.\\n A search through decisions from this court and the other\\ncourts of appeals did not turn up any discussing whether\\naggregation (or not) of all amounts owed to a single creditor\\nconcerns the “character” of a debt. Indeed, few decisions\\ndiscuss the meaning of that word in any debt-related con-\\ntext. In this circuit, Fields v. Wilbur Law Firm, P.C., 383 F.3d\\n562 (7th Cir. 2004), holds that presenting a debt plus agor-\\nneys’ fees as a single undifferentiated sum misstates the\\ndebt’s character, while Hahn v. Triumph Partnerships LLC, 557\\nF.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2009), holds that combining principal and\\ninterest does not do so. Agorneys’ fees differ in character\\nfrom the main debt, while interest does not. Elsewhere,\\n\\f4 No. 17-3408\\n\\nDonohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.\\n2010), agrees with Hahn, while Miller v. Javitch, Block &\\nRathbone, 561 F.3d 588, 592–94 (6th Cir. 2009), holds that de-\\nscribing a debt as a loan rather than an account receivable\\ndoes not misstate its character. None of these decisions holds\\nor implies that it magers to a debt’s “character” whether\\namounts due for individual purchases from a single mer-\\nchant are stated separately or as a total.\\n The absence of authoritative or even persuasive guidance\\nleaves us on our own. To our ears, “character” sounds like a\\nreference to the kind of obligation. (That is essentially how\\nFields heard it, too.) A secured auto loan would be of one\\ncharacter, an unsecured credit-card debt another, a judgment\\ndebt a third, and a subordinated debenture (an instrument\\njunior by contract) a fourth. Keeping these kinds of obliga-\\ntion distinct reduces the potential for confusion about their\\nnature and relative priority. But the number of transactions\\nbetween a debtor and a single merchant does not affect the\\ngenesis, nature, or priority of the debt and so does not con-\\ncern its character. The statute names “character, amount, or\\nlegal status” as distinct agributes, and it would undercut this\\ndisjunction to treat arithmetic as concerning the debt’s\\n“character” rather than its “amount.”\\n The district court’s opinion, and the parties’ briefs, de-\\nvote considerable agention to whether the Bureau made a\\nproper report of “tradelines.” This is a word that Equifax us-\\nes in the conduct of its own business. It does not appear in\\nthe statute or any relevant regulation. (The word “tradeline”\\nor the phrase “trade line” appears four times in the Code of\\nFederal Regulations. None of the regulations defines it, and\\nnone concerns debt collectors’ reports to credit bureaus.)\\n\\fNo. 17-3408 5\\n\\nWhether Equifax has a grievance against Medical Business\\nBureau—and whether Equifax offers debtors some remedy if\\ncreditors or debt collectors err in implementing Equifax’s\\npolicies—are neither here nor there for our purposes.\\nEquifax might have a duty to correct its report if an error\\nwith respect to the number of tradelines affects a consumer’s\\ncredit rating. See 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a). But this suit rests on\\n§1692e(2)(A), not on Equifax’s vocabulary.\\n Medical Business Bureau did not misstate the “character”\\nof Rhone’s debt to the Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, so the\\njudgment of the district court is\\n REVERSED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":674,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588617,"string":"4,588,617"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Anastacia Maclin"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2158"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BAUER, KANNE, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2158\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nANASTACIA V. MACLIN,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\\n No. 2:16-cr-00179-PPS-JEM-1 — Philip P. Simon, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 4, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, KANNE, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. After a jury found Anastacia Vann\\nMaclin guilty of two counts of Medicaid theft she was sen-\\ntenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. Maclin embezzled funds\\nfrom Dr. Farzana Khan’s medical practice after being hired to\\nhandle its electronic billing. Maclin raises two issues on appeal.\\nFirst, is whether a comment by a prospective juror (“Prospec-\\n\\f2 No. 18-2158\\n\\ntive Juror No. 11”) that Dr. Khan had a “home for autism”\\nrequired voir dire to be restarted with a new jury panel.\\nSecond, is whether the district court properly applied a\\nvulnerable victim sentence enhancement based on Dr. Khan’s\\ncomputer illiteracy. For the following reasons, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In January 2015, Dr. Khan hired Maclin to handle the\\nbusiness side of Khan’s medical practice, Iliana Psychiatric\\nAssociates (“Iliana”). In April 2015, Maclin used Dr. Khan’s\\nusername and password to log into the Medicaid system to\\nredirect Iliana’s Medicaid reimbursements from Dr. Khan’s\\nChase business account to Maclin’s personal account at Centier\\nBank, and changed the reimbursement method from paper\\nchecks to electronic fund transfers. Maclin also enrolled Iliana\\nin Medicaid’s electronic incentive program, against the wishes\\nof Dr. Khan and without her knowledge, and caused a one-\\ntime bonus of $21,250 intended for healthcare providers who\\ndigitized their paperwork to be deposited in Maclin’s personal\\naccount. In total, more than $80,000 was deposited into\\nMaclin’s account from April 2015 through July 2016.\\n Iliana’s tax preparer noticed the missing funds and in-\\nformed Dr. Khan. With the help of another employee, Angela\\nRuiz, Dr. Khan reached out to Medicaid to investigate. Since\\nthe user information had been changed, it took Dr. Khan and\\nRuiz several days to unlock the Medicaid account and discover\\nthat the money had been diverted to Maclin’s personal\\naccount. Dr. Khan fired Maclin and filed a police report. A\\ngrand jury returned a two-count indictment against Maclin for\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 3\\n\\nstealing Medicaid reimbursements and the incentive check in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 669.\\n Before trial, Maclin filed a motion in limine to preclude the\\ngovernment, or any of its witnesses, from mentioning that\\nDr. Khan had an adult child with severe autism. The district\\ncourt granted the motion in part, and directed the government\\nto “sanitize” Dr. Khan’s family circumstances to avoid drawing\\nparticular attention to her autistic son.\\n During voir dire prospective jurors were asked whether\\nthey knew any of the witnesses. The witness list included\\nDr. Khan but did not indicate she was the victim in the case.\\nTen jurors were chosen after each declared under oath that\\nthey could be impartial and decide the case on the evidence\\npresented. Prospective Juror No. 11 stated that she knew\\nDr. Khan because she worked as the administrator of “plan-\\nning and building” in Schererville. Prospective Juror No. 11\\nstated that she “worked with [Dr. Khan] on developing her\\nproperty. She has a home for autism.” Prospective Juror No. 11\\nwas excused from the jury because she knew Dr. Khan. Two\\nmore jurors were selected; both swore they could be impartial.\\n At the end of voir dire, Maclin filed a motion for a mistrial.\\nMaclin sought to restart voir dire with a new jury panel,\\narguing that Prospective Juror No. 11's statement was prejudi-\\ncial in light of the ruling on the motion in limine. The district\\ncourt denied the motion and offered a curative instruction,\\nwhich Maclin’s defense counsel declined.\\n Prior to the trial the jury was instructed that their “first\\nduty is to decide the facts from the evidence that you see and\\nhear here in court” without letting “sympathy, prejudice, fear,\\n\\f4 No. 18-2158\\n\\nor public opinion influence you in any way.” The court told the\\njury to base their verdict “exclusively on the law as I give it to\\nyou and the evidence that was presented in the courtroom.”\\nThe court gave similar instructions to the jury a second time,\\nafter closing arguments, stating that “evidence includes only\\nwhat the witnesses said when they were testifying under oath,\\nthe exhibits that I allowed into evidence, and the stipulations\\nthat the lawyers agreed to … . Nothing else is evidence.”\\n The jury found Maclin guilty of both counts. Maclin again\\nmoved for a mistrial, making the same arguments as her earlier\\nmotion. The district court denied the motion concluding that\\n“the fleeting remark, with little in the way of context or\\nexplanation, could not possibly have had created such sympa-\\nthy for Dr. Kahn as to have a prejudicial effect on the jury's\\nverdict finding Maclin guilty.” United States v. Maclin, 2017 U.S.\\nDist. LEXIS 208125, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 19, 2017).\\n The Presentence Report recommended Maclin receive a\\ntwo-level sentencing enhancement because Dr. Khan was a\\n“vulnerable victim” on the basis of her computer illiteracy. At\\nthe sentencing hearing Dr. Khan testified that she did not\\nunderstand how to use a computer, did not bank electronically,\\ndid not send her own e-mails, and did not even use ATMs.\\nDr. Khan further testified that Maclin knew of her complete\\ninability to use computers. Maclin objected to the enhancement\\narguing that Dr. Khan was not vulnerable.\\n The district court overruled the objection and applied the\\nenhancement. The district court stated it had never seen\\nanyone as technologically unsophisticated as Dr. Khan, and\\nconcluded that this made her especially vulnerable to Maclin’s\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 5\\n\\ncomputer-based theft scheme. The court noted that the\\nenhancement resulted in an advisory sentence of 15 to 21\\nmonths, which overlapped with the 10 to 16 month range that\\nwould have been recommended without the enhancement. The\\ncourt found that Maclin had preyed on Dr. Khan and showed\\nno contrition. The court also considered the fact that Maclin\\nwas still paying restitution for a prior offense where she did\\n“basically, the same thing to another physician.” The court\\nimposed a 15-month sentence, noting that the sentence would\\nhave been the same without the vulnerable victim enhance-\\nment because “15 months captures about correctly the gravity\\nof the case.”\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n Rule 33 authorizes the court to “vacate any judgment and\\ngrant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R.\\nCrim. P. 33. The applicable standard under Rule 33 requires a\\nnew trial “only if there is a reasonable possibility that the trial\\nerror had a prejudicial effect on the jury's verdict.” United\\nStates v. Flournoy, 842 F.3d 524, 530 (7th Cir. 2016). We review\\nthe district court’s decision to deny motions for a mistrial and\\nmotions for a new trial for abuses of discretion. See United\\nStates v. Lawrence, 788 F.3d 234, 243 (7th Cir. 2015); Flournoy,\\n842 F.3d at 528. “Each case must turn on its special facts, and in\\neach case the crucial factor is the degree and pervasiveness of\\nthe prejudicial influence possibly resulting from the jury's\\nexposure to the extraneous material.” United States v. Wiesner,\\n789 F.2d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v.\\nWeisman, 736 F.2d 421, 424 (7th Cir. 1984)).\\n\\f6 No. 18-2158\\n\\n Maclin relies extensively on Mach v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 630\\n(9th Cir. 1998). In Mach, the defendant was on trial for sexually\\nabusing a child. Id. at 631–32. The potential juror, a social\\nworker, stated that every time her clients alleged sexual\\nassault, the allegations were later confirmed to be true. Id. at\\n632. The juror repeated the statement several times, and also\\nstated that she had taken psychology courses and worked\\nclosely with psychologists and psychiatrists. Id. The Ninth\\nCircuit reversed the verdict based on the “nature of [the]\\nstatements, the certainty with which they were delivered, the\\nyears of experience that led to them, and the number of times\\nthat they were repeated” and presumed “that at least one juror\\nwas tainted and entered into jury deliberations with the\\nconviction that children simply never lie about being sexually\\nabused.” Id. at 633.\\n This case could not be more different than Mach.\\nProspective Juror No. 11 provided a vague factual statement\\nabout Dr. Khan, not an opinion about the trustworthiness of\\nany witness. Prospective Juror No. 11's statement did not\\nimplicate Maclin’s guilt and was entirely unrelated to the\\ncrimes Maclin was charged with. The statement was neither\\nmaterial to an issue in the case, nor was it inflammatory in any\\nway. It is implausible that the statement could have had a\\nprejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict. The district court was\\nnot required under these circumstances to empanel a new\\nvenire. It was also not required to question each impaneled\\njuror regarding their ability to be impartial given the nature of\\nthe statement and the clear jury instructions given prior to trial\\nand after the closing arguments.\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 7\\n\\n As to the vulnerable victim enhancement, the court found\\nthat Dr. Khan was financially and technologically unsophisti-\\ncated. This made her particularly vulnerable to Maclin’s\\nscheme to use the electronic Medicaid billing system to divert\\nfunds to her own personal account. Maclin argues that the\\nrecord does not support the district court’s conclusion that\\nDr. Khan was financially unsophisticated, and that Dr. Khan\\nwas able to overcome any technological illiteracy by meeting\\nwith people at her bank directly. Maclin relies heavily on\\nUnited States v. Esterman, 324 F.3d 565, 573–74 (7th Cir. 2003).\\nThere, this court found it was a clear error to apply a vulnera-\\nble victim enhancement based solely on a victim’s limited\\nEnglish proficiency, where the victim was financially sophisti-\\ncated and monitored his finances through interpreters.\\n A vulnerable victim is defined by the Guidelines as\\n“someone who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or\\nmental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible\\nto the criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1. We review the\\ndistrict court’s application of the vulnerable victim enhance-\\nment for clear error. Whether a victim is vulnerable “is the type\\nof fact which the trial court is uniquely well-positioned to\\nassess because the trial judge can observe the demeanor of the\\ndefendant and witnesses and has an opportunity to review and\\nanalyze each of the documents and exhibits and hear the\\ntestimony while observing the mental, physical, and emotional\\nstates of the victims in order to assist him with assessing the\\ndamages inflicted upon them.” United States v. Christiansen, 594\\nF.3d 571, 574 (7th Cir. 2010)(internal citations omitted). There\\nmust be “some link between the vulnerability and the charac-\\nteristic in question.” United States v. Lewis, 842 F.3d 467, 476\\n\\f8 No. 18-2158\\n\\n(7th Cir. 2016) (vulnerable victim enhancement warranted\\nwhere defendant abused trust of victims who “lacked basic\\ncomputer skills”); see also United States v. Sullivan, 765 F.3d\\n712, 717 (7th Cir. 2014) (evidence supported enhancement\\nbecause it showed the defendants targeted victims who were\\nelderly and financially unsophisticated); United States v. Parolin,\\n239 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2001) (vulnerable victim enhancement\\nappropriate due to defendant’s knowledge of victims’ lack of\\nfinancial sophistication).\\n The district court found that Dr. Khan was remarkably\\ncomputer illiterate. She did not “do e-mail” and her attempts\\nto access computer systems routinely resulted in failure\\nbecause she inadvertently triggered security mechanisms. The\\ncourt noted that Dr. Khan “totally entrusted this to Ms. Maclin,\\nthe operation of the financial side of her business, and\\nMs. Maclin knew that.” Maclin used that knowledge to\\ndefraud Dr. Khan using the electronic billing system. The\\ndistrict court noted that Dr. Khan was intelligent, and that it\\nwas a “close call” but concluded that “literally—in 15 years, I\\nhave never seen somebody so technologically unsophisticated\\nas this victim to the point where she literally has never\\nused e-mail even. She doesn’t have the ability to check her\\naccounts.”\\n This Court held in Esterman that it was clear error by the\\ndistrict court to “consider[] “the linguistic factor in isolation.”\\nEsterman, 324 F.3d at 573–74. Esterman argued that the district\\ncourt improperly ignored the victim’s “sophistication as a\\nbusinessperson, his ability to communicate with the bank\\nthrough an interpreter, his ability to dispatch deputies, and his\\nfamiliarity with the legal system as evidenced by his filing of\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 9\\n\\ncriminal and civil complaints.” Id. Unlike in Esterman, the\\ndistrict court here considered the mitigating factor that\\nDr. Khan was generally an intelligent person, but found she\\nwas so technologically illiterate that it made her particularly\\nvulnerable to electronic billing fraud. While Dr. Khan could\\nmeet in person at the bank to go over her accounts, had she\\nbeen able to check her accounts electronically she would have\\ndiscovered the fraud much sooner.\\n Additionally, the district court noted the 15-month sentence\\nwas within Guidelines range whether or not the vulnerable\\nvictim enhancement was applied, and declared 15 months\\nwould be the sentence “irrespective of how that decision fell\\nout.” The court stated that the enhancement “wouldn’t have\\nchanged my judgment on the case one way or the other”\\nbecause “15 months captures about correctly the gravity of the\\ncase” considering Maclin stole a substantial sum of money\\nfrom Dr. Khan while still paying restitution for an almost\\nidentical crime.\\n “A district court facing a tricky but technical issue under\\nthe Guidelines may exercise its discretion under section 3553(a)\\nand may spell out on the record whether and to what extent\\nthe resolution of the guideline issue affected the court's final\\ndecision on the sentence.” United States v. Snyder, 865 F.3d 490,\\n500 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Lopez, 634 F.3d 948,\\n954 (7th Cir. 2011)); see, e.g., United States v. Sanner, 565 F.3d\\n400, 406 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming an above-guideline sentence\\nwithout regard for the correct resolution of guideline issue);\\nUnited States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660, 666–67 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(holding a guideline error was harmless based on judge's\\nexplanation of alternative basis for same sentence). We find no\\n\\f10 No. 18-2158\\n\\nerror in the district court’s application of the vulnerable victim\\nenhancement and, regardless, any error would have been\\nharmless.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court’s denial of the motions for mistrial, and\\nthe district court’s sentencing, are hereby AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4365870/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588617/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Anastacia Maclin\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2158\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\n\nANASTACIA V. MACLIN,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\n No. 2:16-cr-00179-PPS-JEM-1 — Philip P. Simon, Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED DECEMBER 4, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, KANNE, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. After a jury found Anastacia Vann\nMaclin guilty of two counts of Medicaid theft she was sen-\ntenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. Maclin embezzled funds\nfrom Dr. Farzana Khan’s medical practice after being hired to\nhandle its electronic billing. Maclin raises two issues on appeal.\nFirst, is whether a comment by a prospective juror (“Prospec-\n\f2 No. 18-2158\n\ntive Juror No. 11”) that Dr. Khan had a “home for autism”\nrequired voir dire to be restarted with a new jury panel.\nSecond, is whether the district court properly applied a\nvulnerable victim sentence enhancement based on Dr. Khan’s\ncomputer illiteracy. For the following reasons, we affirm.\n I. BACKGROUND\n In January 2015, Dr. Khan hired Maclin to handle the\nbusiness side of Khan’s medical practice, Iliana Psychiatric\nAssociates (“Iliana”). In April 2015, Maclin used Dr. Khan’s\nusername and password to log into the Medicaid system to\nredirect Iliana’s Medicaid reimbursements from Dr. Khan’s\nChase business account to Maclin’s personal account at Centier\nBank, and changed the reimbursement method from paper\nchecks to electronic fund transfers. Maclin also enrolled Iliana\nin Medicaid’s electronic incentive program, against the wishes\nof Dr. Khan and without her knowledge, and caused a one-\ntime bonus of $21,250 intended for healthcare providers who\ndigitized their paperwork to be deposited in Maclin’s personal\naccount. In total, more than $80,000 was deposited into\nMaclin’s account from April 2015 through July 2016.\n Iliana’s tax preparer noticed the missing funds and in-\nformed Dr. Khan. With the help of another employee, Angela\nRuiz, Dr. Khan reached out to Medicaid to investigate. Since\nthe user information had been changed, it took Dr. Khan and\nRuiz several days to unlock the Medicaid account and discover\nthat the money had been diverted to Maclin’s personal\naccount. Dr. Khan fired Maclin and filed a police report. A\ngrand jury returned a two-count indictment against Maclin for\n\fNo. 18-2158 3\n\nstealing Medicaid reimbursements and the incentive check in\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 669.\n Before trial, Maclin filed a motion in limine to preclude the\ngovernment, or any of its witnesses, from mentioning that\nDr. Khan had an adult child with severe autism. The district\ncourt granted the motion in part, and directed the government\nto “sanitize” Dr. Khan’s family circumstances to avoid drawing\nparticular attention to her autistic son.\n During voir dire prospective jurors were asked whether\nthey knew any of the witnesses. The witness list included\nDr. Khan but did not indicate she was the victim in the case.\nTen jurors were chosen after each declared under oath that\nthey could be impartial and decide the case on the evidence\npresented. Prospective Juror No. 11 stated that she knew\nDr. Khan because she worked as the administrator of “plan-\nning and building” in Schererville. Prospective Juror No. 11\nstated that she “worked with [Dr. Khan] on developing her\nproperty. She has a home for autism.” Prospective Juror No. 11\nwas excused from the jury because she knew Dr. Khan. Two\nmore jurors were selected; both swore they could be impartial.\n At the end of voir dire, Maclin filed a motion for a mistrial.\nMaclin sought to restart voir dire with a new jury panel,\narguing that Prospective Juror No. 11's statement was prejudi-\ncial in light of the ruling on the motion in limine. The district\ncourt denied the motion and offered a curative instruction,\nwhich Maclin’s defense counsel declined.\n Prior to the trial the jury was instructed that their “first\nduty is to decide the facts from the evidence that you see and\nhear here in court” without letting “sympathy, prejudice, fear,\n\f4 No. 18-2158\n\nor public opinion influence you in any way.” The court told the\njury to base their verdict “exclusively on the law as I give it to\nyou and the evidence that was presented in the courtroom.”\nThe court gave similar instructions to the jury a second time,\nafter closing arguments, stating that “evidence includes only\nwhat the witnesses said when they were testifying under oath,\nthe exhibits that I allowed into evidence, and the stipulations\nthat the lawyers agreed to … . Nothing else is evidence.”\n The jury found Maclin guilty of both counts. Maclin again\nmoved for a mistrial, making the same arguments as her earlier\nmotion. The district court denied the motion concluding that\n“the fleeting remark, with little in the way of context or\nexplanation, could not possibly have had created such sympa-\nthy for Dr. Kahn as to have a prejudicial effect on the jury's\nverdict finding Maclin guilty.” United States v. Maclin, 2017 U.S.\nDist. LEXIS 208125, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 19, 2017).\n The Presentence Report recommended Maclin receive a\ntwo-level sentencing enhancement because Dr. Khan was a\n“vulnerable victim” on the basis of her computer illiteracy. At\nthe sentencing hearing Dr. Khan testified that she did not\nunderstand how to use a computer, did not bank electronically,\ndid not send her own e-mails, and did not even use ATMs.\nDr. Khan further testified that Maclin knew of her complete\ninability to use computers. Maclin objected to the enhancement\narguing that Dr. Khan was not vulnerable.\n The district court overruled the objection and applied the\nenhancement. The district court stated it had never seen\nanyone as technologically unsophisticated as Dr. Khan, and\nconcluded that this made her especially vulnerable to Maclin’s\n\fNo. 18-2158 5\n\ncomputer-based theft scheme. The court noted that the\nenhancement resulted in an advisory sentence of 15 to 21\nmonths, which overlapped with the 10 to 16 month range that\nwould have been recommended without the enhancement. The\ncourt found that Maclin had preyed on Dr. Khan and showed\nno contrition. The court also considered the fact that Maclin\nwas still paying restitution for a prior offense where she did\n“basically, the same thing to another physician.” The court\nimposed a 15-month sentence, noting that the sentence would\nhave been the same without the vulnerable victim enhance-\nment because “15 months captures about correctly the gravity\nof the case.”\n II. ANALYSIS\n Rule 33 authorizes the court to “vacate any judgment and\ngrant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R.\nCrim. P. 33. The applicable standard under Rule 33 requires a\nnew trial “only if there is a reasonable possibility that the trial\nerror had a prejudicial effect on the jury's verdict.” United\nStates v. Flournoy, 842 F.3d 524, 530 (7th Cir. 2016). We review\nthe district court’s decision to deny motions for a mistrial and\nmotions for a new trial for abuses of discretion. See United\nStates v. Lawrence, 788 F.3d 234, 243 (7th Cir. 2015); Flournoy,\n842 F.3d at 528. “Each case must turn on its special facts, and in\neach case the crucial factor is the degree and pervasiveness of\nthe prejudicial influence possibly resulting from the jury's\nexposure to the extraneous material.” United States v. Wiesner,\n789 F.2d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v.\nWeisman, 736 F.2d 421, 424 (7th Cir. 1984)).\n\f6 No. 18-2158\n\n Maclin relies extensively on Mach v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 630\n(9th Cir. 1998). In Mach, the defendant was on trial for sexually\nabusing a child. Id. at 631–32. The potential juror, a social\nworker, stated that every time her clients alleged sexual\nassault, the allegations were later confirmed to be true. Id. at\n632. The juror repeated the statement several times, and also\nstated that she had taken psychology courses and worked\nclosely with psychologists and psychiatrists. Id. The Ninth\nCircuit reversed the verdict based on the “nature of [the]\nstatements, the certainty with which they were delivered, the\nyears of experience that led to them, and the number of times\nthat they were repeated” and presumed “that at least one juror\nwas tainted and entered into jury deliberations with the\nconviction that children simply never lie about being sexually\nabused.” Id. at 633.\n This case could not be more different than Mach.\nProspective Juror No. 11 provided a vague factual statement\nabout Dr. Khan, not an opinion about the trustworthiness of\nany witness. Prospective Juror No. 11's statement did not\nimplicate Maclin’s guilt and was entirely unrelated to the\ncrimes Maclin was charged with. The statement was neither\nmaterial to an issue in the case, nor was it inflammatory in any\nway. It is implausible that the statement could have had a\nprejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict. The district court was\nnot required under these circumstances to empanel a new\nvenire. It was also not required to question each impaneled\njuror regarding their ability to be impartial given the nature of\nthe statement and the clear jury instructions given prior to trial\nand after the closing arguments.\n\fNo. 18-2158 7\n\n As to the vulnerable victim enhancement, the court found\nthat Dr. Khan was financially and technologically unsophisti-\ncated. This made her particularly vulnerable to Maclin’s\nscheme to use the electronic Medicaid billing system to divert\nfunds to her own personal account. Maclin argues that the\nrecord does not support the district court’s conclusion that\nDr. Khan was financially unsophisticated, and that Dr. Khan\nwas able to overcome any technological illiteracy by meeting\nwith people at her bank directly. Maclin relies heavily on\nUnited States v. Esterman, 324 F.3d 565, 573–74 (7th Cir. 2003).\nThere, this court found it was a clear error to apply a vulnera-\nble victim enhancement based solely on a victim’s limited\nEnglish proficiency, where the victim was financially sophisti-\ncated and monitored his finances through interpreters.\n A vulnerable victim is defined by the Guidelines as\n“someone who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or\nmental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible\nto the criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1. We review the\ndistrict court’s application of the vulnerable victim enhance-\nment for clear error. Whether a victim is vulnerable “is the type\nof fact which the trial court is uniquely well-positioned to\nassess because the trial judge can observe the demeanor of the\ndefendant and witnesses and has an opportunity to review and\nanalyze each of the documents and exhibits and hear the\ntestimony while observing the mental, physical, and emotional\nstates of the victims in order to assist him with assessing the\ndamages inflicted upon them.” United States v. Christiansen, 594\nF.3d 571, 574 (7th Cir. 2010)(internal citations omitted). There\nmust be “some link between the vulnerability and the charac-\nteristic in question.” United States v. Lewis, 842 F.3d 467, 476\n\f8 No. 18-2158\n\n(7th Cir. 2016) (vulnerable victim enhancement warranted\nwhere defendant abused trust of victims who “lacked basic\ncomputer skills”); see also United States v. Sullivan, 765 F.3d\n712, 717 (7th Cir. 2014) (evidence supported enhancement\nbecause it showed the defendants targeted victims who were\nelderly and financially unsophisticated); United States v. Parolin,\n239 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2001) (vulnerable victim enhancement\nappropriate due to defendant’s knowledge of victims’ lack of\nfinancial sophistication).\n The district court found that Dr. Khan was remarkably\ncomputer illiterate. She did not “do e-mail” and her attempts\nto access computer systems routinely resulted in failure\nbecause she inadvertently triggered security mechanisms. The\ncourt noted that Dr. Khan “totally entrusted this to Ms. Maclin,\nthe operation of the financial side of her business, and\nMs. Maclin knew that.” Maclin used that knowledge to\ndefraud Dr. Khan using the electronic billing system. The\ndistrict court noted that Dr. Khan was intelligent, and that it\nwas a “close call” but concluded that “literally—in 15 years, I\nhave never seen somebody so technologically unsophisticated\nas this victim to the point where she literally has never\nused e-mail even. She doesn’t have the ability to check her\naccounts.”\n This Court held in Esterman that it was clear error by the\ndistrict court to “consider[] “the linguistic factor in isolation.”\nEsterman, 324 F.3d at 573–74. Esterman argued that the district\ncourt improperly ignored the victim’s “sophistication as a\nbusinessperson, his ability to communicate with the bank\nthrough an interpreter, his ability to dispatch deputies, and his\nfamiliarity with the legal system as evidenced by his filing of\n\fNo. 18-2158 9\n\ncriminal and civil complaints.” Id. Unlike in Esterman, the\ndistrict court here considered the mitigating factor that\nDr. Khan was generally an intelligent person, but found she\nwas so technologically illiterate that it made her particularly\nvulnerable to electronic billing fraud. While Dr. Khan could\nmeet in person at the bank to go over her accounts, had she\nbeen able to check her accounts electronically she would have\ndiscovered the fraud much sooner.\n Additionally, the district court noted the 15-month sentence\nwas within Guidelines range whether or not the vulnerable\nvictim enhancement was applied, and declared 15 months\nwould be the sentence “irrespective of how that decision fell\nout.” The court stated that the enhancement “wouldn’t have\nchanged my judgment on the case one way or the other”\nbecause “15 months captures about correctly the gravity of the\ncase” considering Maclin stole a substantial sum of money\nfrom Dr. Khan while still paying restitution for an almost\nidentical crime.\n “A district court facing a tricky but technical issue under\nthe Guidelines may exercise its discretion under section 3553(a)\nand may spell out on the record whether and to what extent\nthe resolution of the guideline issue affected the court's final\ndecision on the sentence.” United States v. Snyder, 865 F.3d 490,\n500 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Lopez, 634 F.3d 948,\n954 (7th Cir. 2011)); see, e.g., United States v. Sanner, 565 F.3d\n400, 406 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming an above-guideline sentence\nwithout regard for the correct resolution of guideline issue);\nUnited States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660, 666–67 (7th Cir. 2009)\n(holding a guideline error was harmless based on judge's\nexplanation of alternative basis for same sentence). We find no\n\f10 No. 18-2158\n\nerror in the district court’s application of the vulnerable victim\nenhancement and, regardless, any error would have been\nharmless.\n III. CONCLUSION\n The district court’s denial of the motions for mistrial, and\nthe district court’s sentencing, are hereby AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Anastacia Maclin\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2158\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nANASTACIA V. MACLIN,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\\n No. 2:16-cr-00179-PPS-JEM-1 — Philip P. Simon, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 4, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, KANNE, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. After a jury found Anastacia Vann\\nMaclin guilty of two counts of Medicaid theft she was sen-\\ntenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. Maclin embezzled funds\\nfrom Dr. Farzana Khan’s medical practice after being hired to\\nhandle its electronic billing. Maclin raises two issues on appeal.\\nFirst, is whether a comment by a prospective juror (“Prospec-\\n\\f2 No. 18-2158\\n\\ntive Juror No. 11”) that Dr. Khan had a “home for autism”\\nrequired voir dire to be restarted with a new jury panel.\\nSecond, is whether the district court properly applied a\\nvulnerable victim sentence enhancement based on Dr. Khan’s\\ncomputer illiteracy. For the following reasons, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In January 2015, Dr. Khan hired Maclin to handle the\\nbusiness side of Khan’s medical practice, Iliana Psychiatric\\nAssociates (“Iliana”). In April 2015, Maclin used Dr. Khan’s\\nusername and password to log into the Medicaid system to\\nredirect Iliana’s Medicaid reimbursements from Dr. Khan’s\\nChase business account to Maclin’s personal account at Centier\\nBank, and changed the reimbursement method from paper\\nchecks to electronic fund transfers. Maclin also enrolled Iliana\\nin Medicaid’s electronic incentive program, against the wishes\\nof Dr. Khan and without her knowledge, and caused a one-\\ntime bonus of $21,250 intended for healthcare providers who\\ndigitized their paperwork to be deposited in Maclin’s personal\\naccount. In total, more than $80,000 was deposited into\\nMaclin’s account from April 2015 through July 2016.\\n Iliana’s tax preparer noticed the missing funds and in-\\nformed Dr. Khan. With the help of another employee, Angela\\nRuiz, Dr. Khan reached out to Medicaid to investigate. Since\\nthe user information had been changed, it took Dr. Khan and\\nRuiz several days to unlock the Medicaid account and discover\\nthat the money had been diverted to Maclin’s personal\\naccount. Dr. Khan fired Maclin and filed a police report. A\\ngrand jury returned a two-count indictment against Maclin for\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 3\\n\\nstealing Medicaid reimbursements and the incentive check in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 669.\\n Before trial, Maclin filed a motion in limine to preclude the\\ngovernment, or any of its witnesses, from mentioning that\\nDr. Khan had an adult child with severe autism. The district\\ncourt granted the motion in part, and directed the government\\nto “sanitize” Dr. Khan’s family circumstances to avoid drawing\\nparticular attention to her autistic son.\\n During voir dire prospective jurors were asked whether\\nthey knew any of the witnesses. The witness list included\\nDr. Khan but did not indicate she was the victim in the case.\\nTen jurors were chosen after each declared under oath that\\nthey could be impartial and decide the case on the evidence\\npresented. Prospective Juror No. 11 stated that she knew\\nDr. Khan because she worked as the administrator of “plan-\\nning and building” in Schererville. Prospective Juror No. 11\\nstated that she “worked with [Dr. Khan] on developing her\\nproperty. She has a home for autism.” Prospective Juror No. 11\\nwas excused from the jury because she knew Dr. Khan. Two\\nmore jurors were selected; both swore they could be impartial.\\n At the end of voir dire, Maclin filed a motion for a mistrial.\\nMaclin sought to restart voir dire with a new jury panel,\\narguing that Prospective Juror No. 11's statement was prejudi-\\ncial in light of the ruling on the motion in limine. The district\\ncourt denied the motion and offered a curative instruction,\\nwhich Maclin’s defense counsel declined.\\n Prior to the trial the jury was instructed that their “first\\nduty is to decide the facts from the evidence that you see and\\nhear here in court” without letting “sympathy, prejudice, fear,\\n\\f4 No. 18-2158\\n\\nor public opinion influence you in any way.” The court told the\\njury to base their verdict “exclusively on the law as I give it to\\nyou and the evidence that was presented in the courtroom.”\\nThe court gave similar instructions to the jury a second time,\\nafter closing arguments, stating that “evidence includes only\\nwhat the witnesses said when they were testifying under oath,\\nthe exhibits that I allowed into evidence, and the stipulations\\nthat the lawyers agreed to … . Nothing else is evidence.”\\n The jury found Maclin guilty of both counts. Maclin again\\nmoved for a mistrial, making the same arguments as her earlier\\nmotion. The district court denied the motion concluding that\\n“the fleeting remark, with little in the way of context or\\nexplanation, could not possibly have had created such sympa-\\nthy for Dr. Kahn as to have a prejudicial effect on the jury's\\nverdict finding Maclin guilty.” United States v. Maclin, 2017 U.S.\\nDist. LEXIS 208125, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 19, 2017).\\n The Presentence Report recommended Maclin receive a\\ntwo-level sentencing enhancement because Dr. Khan was a\\n“vulnerable victim” on the basis of her computer illiteracy. At\\nthe sentencing hearing Dr. Khan testified that she did not\\nunderstand how to use a computer, did not bank electronically,\\ndid not send her own e-mails, and did not even use ATMs.\\nDr. Khan further testified that Maclin knew of her complete\\ninability to use computers. Maclin objected to the enhancement\\narguing that Dr. Khan was not vulnerable.\\n The district court overruled the objection and applied the\\nenhancement. The district court stated it had never seen\\nanyone as technologically unsophisticated as Dr. Khan, and\\nconcluded that this made her especially vulnerable to Maclin’s\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 5\\n\\ncomputer-based theft scheme. The court noted that the\\nenhancement resulted in an advisory sentence of 15 to 21\\nmonths, which overlapped with the 10 to 16 month range that\\nwould have been recommended without the enhancement. The\\ncourt found that Maclin had preyed on Dr. Khan and showed\\nno contrition. The court also considered the fact that Maclin\\nwas still paying restitution for a prior offense where she did\\n“basically, the same thing to another physician.” The court\\nimposed a 15-month sentence, noting that the sentence would\\nhave been the same without the vulnerable victim enhance-\\nment because “15 months captures about correctly the gravity\\nof the case.”\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n Rule 33 authorizes the court to “vacate any judgment and\\ngrant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R.\\nCrim. P. 33. The applicable standard under Rule 33 requires a\\nnew trial “only if there is a reasonable possibility that the trial\\nerror had a prejudicial effect on the jury's verdict.” United\\nStates v. Flournoy, 842 F.3d 524, 530 (7th Cir. 2016). We review\\nthe district court’s decision to deny motions for a mistrial and\\nmotions for a new trial for abuses of discretion. See United\\nStates v. Lawrence, 788 F.3d 234, 243 (7th Cir. 2015); Flournoy,\\n842 F.3d at 528. “Each case must turn on its special facts, and in\\neach case the crucial factor is the degree and pervasiveness of\\nthe prejudicial influence possibly resulting from the jury's\\nexposure to the extraneous material.” United States v. Wiesner,\\n789 F.2d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v.\\nWeisman, 736 F.2d 421, 424 (7th Cir. 1984)).\\n\\f6 No. 18-2158\\n\\n Maclin relies extensively on Mach v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 630\\n(9th Cir. 1998). In Mach, the defendant was on trial for sexually\\nabusing a child. Id. at 631–32. The potential juror, a social\\nworker, stated that every time her clients alleged sexual\\nassault, the allegations were later confirmed to be true. Id. at\\n632. The juror repeated the statement several times, and also\\nstated that she had taken psychology courses and worked\\nclosely with psychologists and psychiatrists. Id. The Ninth\\nCircuit reversed the verdict based on the “nature of [the]\\nstatements, the certainty with which they were delivered, the\\nyears of experience that led to them, and the number of times\\nthat they were repeated” and presumed “that at least one juror\\nwas tainted and entered into jury deliberations with the\\nconviction that children simply never lie about being sexually\\nabused.” Id. at 633.\\n This case could not be more different than Mach.\\nProspective Juror No. 11 provided a vague factual statement\\nabout Dr. Khan, not an opinion about the trustworthiness of\\nany witness. Prospective Juror No. 11's statement did not\\nimplicate Maclin’s guilt and was entirely unrelated to the\\ncrimes Maclin was charged with. The statement was neither\\nmaterial to an issue in the case, nor was it inflammatory in any\\nway. It is implausible that the statement could have had a\\nprejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict. The district court was\\nnot required under these circumstances to empanel a new\\nvenire. It was also not required to question each impaneled\\njuror regarding their ability to be impartial given the nature of\\nthe statement and the clear jury instructions given prior to trial\\nand after the closing arguments.\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 7\\n\\n As to the vulnerable victim enhancement, the court found\\nthat Dr. Khan was financially and technologically unsophisti-\\ncated. This made her particularly vulnerable to Maclin’s\\nscheme to use the electronic Medicaid billing system to divert\\nfunds to her own personal account. Maclin argues that the\\nrecord does not support the district court’s conclusion that\\nDr. Khan was financially unsophisticated, and that Dr. Khan\\nwas able to overcome any technological illiteracy by meeting\\nwith people at her bank directly. Maclin relies heavily on\\nUnited States v. Esterman, 324 F.3d 565, 573–74 (7th Cir. 2003).\\nThere, this court found it was a clear error to apply a vulnera-\\nble victim enhancement based solely on a victim’s limited\\nEnglish proficiency, where the victim was financially sophisti-\\ncated and monitored his finances through interpreters.\\n A vulnerable victim is defined by the Guidelines as\\n“someone who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or\\nmental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible\\nto the criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1. We review the\\ndistrict court’s application of the vulnerable victim enhance-\\nment for clear error. Whether a victim is vulnerable “is the type\\nof fact which the trial court is uniquely well-positioned to\\nassess because the trial judge can observe the demeanor of the\\ndefendant and witnesses and has an opportunity to review and\\nanalyze each of the documents and exhibits and hear the\\ntestimony while observing the mental, physical, and emotional\\nstates of the victims in order to assist him with assessing the\\ndamages inflicted upon them.” United States v. Christiansen, 594\\nF.3d 571, 574 (7th Cir. 2010)(internal citations omitted). There\\nmust be “some link between the vulnerability and the charac-\\nteristic in question.” United States v. Lewis, 842 F.3d 467, 476\\n\\f8 No. 18-2158\\n\\n(7th Cir. 2016) (vulnerable victim enhancement warranted\\nwhere defendant abused trust of victims who “lacked basic\\ncomputer skills”); see also United States v. Sullivan, 765 F.3d\\n712, 717 (7th Cir. 2014) (evidence supported enhancement\\nbecause it showed the defendants targeted victims who were\\nelderly and financially unsophisticated); United States v. Parolin,\\n239 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2001) (vulnerable victim enhancement\\nappropriate due to defendant’s knowledge of victims’ lack of\\nfinancial sophistication).\\n The district court found that Dr. Khan was remarkably\\ncomputer illiterate. She did not “do e-mail” and her attempts\\nto access computer systems routinely resulted in failure\\nbecause she inadvertently triggered security mechanisms. The\\ncourt noted that Dr. Khan “totally entrusted this to Ms. Maclin,\\nthe operation of the financial side of her business, and\\nMs. Maclin knew that.” Maclin used that knowledge to\\ndefraud Dr. Khan using the electronic billing system. The\\ndistrict court noted that Dr. Khan was intelligent, and that it\\nwas a “close call” but concluded that “literally—in 15 years, I\\nhave never seen somebody so technologically unsophisticated\\nas this victim to the point where she literally has never\\nused e-mail even. She doesn’t have the ability to check her\\naccounts.”\\n This Court held in Esterman that it was clear error by the\\ndistrict court to “consider[] “the linguistic factor in isolation.”\\nEsterman, 324 F.3d at 573–74. Esterman argued that the district\\ncourt improperly ignored the victim’s “sophistication as a\\nbusinessperson, his ability to communicate with the bank\\nthrough an interpreter, his ability to dispatch deputies, and his\\nfamiliarity with the legal system as evidenced by his filing of\\n\\fNo. 18-2158 9\\n\\ncriminal and civil complaints.” Id. Unlike in Esterman, the\\ndistrict court here considered the mitigating factor that\\nDr. Khan was generally an intelligent person, but found she\\nwas so technologically illiterate that it made her particularly\\nvulnerable to electronic billing fraud. While Dr. Khan could\\nmeet in person at the bank to go over her accounts, had she\\nbeen able to check her accounts electronically she would have\\ndiscovered the fraud much sooner.\\n Additionally, the district court noted the 15-month sentence\\nwas within Guidelines range whether or not the vulnerable\\nvictim enhancement was applied, and declared 15 months\\nwould be the sentence “irrespective of how that decision fell\\nout.” The court stated that the enhancement “wouldn’t have\\nchanged my judgment on the case one way or the other”\\nbecause “15 months captures about correctly the gravity of the\\ncase” considering Maclin stole a substantial sum of money\\nfrom Dr. Khan while still paying restitution for an almost\\nidentical crime.\\n “A district court facing a tricky but technical issue under\\nthe Guidelines may exercise its discretion under section 3553(a)\\nand may spell out on the record whether and to what extent\\nthe resolution of the guideline issue affected the court's final\\ndecision on the sentence.” United States v. Snyder, 865 F.3d 490,\\n500 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Lopez, 634 F.3d 948,\\n954 (7th Cir. 2011)); see, e.g., United States v. Sanner, 565 F.3d\\n400, 406 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming an above-guideline sentence\\nwithout regard for the correct resolution of guideline issue);\\nUnited States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660, 666–67 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(holding a guideline error was harmless based on judge's\\nexplanation of alternative basis for same sentence). We find no\\n\\f10 No. 18-2158\\n\\nerror in the district court’s application of the vulnerable victim\\nenhancement and, regardless, any error would have been\\nharmless.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court’s denial of the motions for mistrial, and\\nthe district court’s sentencing, are hereby AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":675,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588618,"string":"4,588,618"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Diane Rhone v. Medical Business Bureau, LLC"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3408"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3408\\nDIANE RHONE,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nMEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 C 5215 — Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. This case is about character—\\nthe character of a debt. A debt collector must not make any\\n“false representation” about “the character, amount, or legal\\nstatus of any debt”. 15 U.S.C. §1692e(2)(A). A district court\\nconcluded that a debt collector misrepresented a debt’s\\n“character” by reporting to a credit bureau that the debtor\\nhad nine unpaid bills of $60 rather than one of $540. We\\n\\f2 No. 17-3408\\n\\nhold, to the contrary, that arithmetic does not affect a debt’s\\n“character.” The statutory word “amount” rather than the\\nword “character” is what governs reporting the debt’s size.\\n Diane Rhone received physical therapy from Illinois\\nBone and Joint Institute, which billed her $134 for each ses-\\nsion. Insurance covered all but a $60 co-pay per session.\\nRhone did not remit her part of the bills, however, and the\\nInstitute turned to the Medical Business Bureau for debt col-\\nlection. After three years of dunning legers did not work, the\\nBureau reported to Equifax that Rhone owes nine debts of\\n$60 each. That led to this suit, in which Rhone contends that\\nthe Bureau had to report the aggregate debt of $540 rather\\nthan nine $60 debts. Judge Der-Yeghiayan agreed with that\\nsubmission. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177800 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25,\\n2017). After he retired the case was assigned to Judge Ken-\\ndall, who imposed a $1,000 penalty. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\\n188433 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2018).\\n The credit report was factually correct. Rhone incurred\\nnine debts of $60 each. Judge Der-Yeghiayan did not explain\\nwhy the difference between 1 × $540 and 9 × $60 misrepre-\\nsents the “character” of a debt. Neither the district judge nor\\nRhone offered a definition of the word “character.” Asked at\\noral argument whether a debt collector should report one\\ndebt, or two, if a person buys two cars from a single dealer\\nand does not pay for either car, Rhone’s lawyer replied: “It\\nwould depend.” Counsel told us that a judge should consid-\\ner “all the facts and circumstances” once litigation is under-\\nway. Yet what a court (or for that mager a debt collector)\\nneeds is a rule of law to apply to those facts and circum-\\nstances. This is a statutory suit, not a common-law action.\\nThe word “character” either requires aggregation of debts\\n\\fNo. 17-3408 3\\n\\narising from multiple transactions with a single entity, or it\\ndoes not.\\n The statute refers separately to the “character” and the\\n“amount” of a debt. Rhone does not contend that the Bureau\\nmisrepresented the “amount” of the debt by telling Equifax\\nthat Rhone owes $60 for each of nine medical treatments. We\\ncan imagine a regulation specifying whether debts to a sin-\\ngle creditor should be aggregated (or perhaps reported both\\nsingly and in the aggregate)—consistency contributes to clar-\\nity—but Rhone does not point to such a regulation, nor\\ncould we find one. One benefit of identifying each amount\\nseparately is that a debtor then can identify exactly which\\ntransactions are at issue. If the Bureau had reported one $540\\ndebt, Rhone might well have asserted that the report was\\nmisleading—after all, she does not owe $540 for any transac-\\ntion. Per-transaction reporting also shows whether some of\\nthe debts are stale (that is, whether the statute of limitations\\nbars collection). Consumers and credit bureaus alike may\\nfind that information valuable.\\n A search through decisions from this court and the other\\ncourts of appeals did not turn up any discussing whether\\naggregation (or not) of all amounts owed to a single creditor\\nconcerns the “character” of a debt. Indeed, few decisions\\ndiscuss the meaning of that word in any debt-related con-\\ntext. In this circuit, Fields v. Wilbur Law Firm, P.C., 383 F.3d\\n562 (7th Cir. 2004), holds that presenting a debt plus agor-\\nneys’ fees as a single undifferentiated sum misstates the\\ndebt’s character, while Hahn v. Triumph Partnerships LLC, 557\\nF.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2009), holds that combining principal and\\ninterest does not do so. Agorneys’ fees differ in character\\nfrom the main debt, while interest does not. Elsewhere,\\n\\f4 No. 17-3408\\n\\nDonohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.\\n2010), agrees with Hahn, while Miller v. Javitch, Block &\\nRathbone, 561 F.3d 588, 592–94 (6th Cir. 2009), holds that de-\\nscribing a debt as a loan rather than an account receivable\\ndoes not misstate its character. None of these decisions holds\\nor implies that it magers to a debt’s “character” whether\\namounts due for individual purchases from a single mer-\\nchant are stated separately or as a total.\\n The absence of authoritative or even persuasive guidance\\nleaves us on our own. To our ears, “character” sounds like a\\nreference to the kind of obligation. (That is essentially how\\nFields heard it, too.) A secured auto loan would be of one\\ncharacter, an unsecured credit-card debt another, a judgment\\ndebt a third, and a subordinated debenture (an instrument\\njunior by contract) a fourth. Keeping these kinds of obliga-\\ntion distinct reduces the potential for confusion about their\\nnature and relative priority. But the number of transactions\\nbetween a debtor and a single merchant does not affect the\\ngenesis, nature, or priority of the debt and so does not con-\\ncern its character. The statute names “character, amount, or\\nlegal status” as distinct agributes, and it would undercut this\\ndisjunction to treat arithmetic as concerning the debt’s\\n“character” rather than its “amount.”\\n The district court’s opinion, and the parties’ briefs, de-\\nvote considerable agention to whether the Bureau made a\\nproper report of “tradelines.” This is a word that Equifax us-\\nes in the conduct of its own business. It does not appear in\\nthe statute or any relevant regulation. (The word “tradeline”\\nor the phrase “trade line” appears four times in the Code of\\nFederal Regulations. None of the regulations defines it, and\\nnone concerns debt collectors’ reports to credit bureaus.)\\n\\fNo. 17-3408 5\\n\\nWhether Equifax has a grievance against Medical Business\\nBureau—and whether Equifax offers debtors some remedy if\\ncreditors or debt collectors err in implementing Equifax’s\\npolicies—are neither here nor there for our purposes.\\nEquifax might have a duty to correct its report if an error\\nwith respect to the number of tradelines affects a consumer’s\\ncredit rating. See 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a). But this suit rests on\\n§1692e(2)(A), not on Equifax’s vocabulary.\\n Medical Business Bureau did not misstate the “character”\\nof Rhone’s debt to the Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, so the\\njudgment of the district court is\\n REVERSED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4365871/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588618/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Diane Rhone v. Medical Business Bureau, LLC\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3408\nDIANE RHONE,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\nMEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16 C 5215 — Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER,\nCircuit Judges.\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. This case is about character—\nthe character of a debt. A debt collector must not make any\n“false representation” about “the character, amount, or legal\nstatus of any debt”. 15 U.S.C. §1692e(2)(A). A district court\nconcluded that a debt collector misrepresented a debt’s\n“character” by reporting to a credit bureau that the debtor\nhad nine unpaid bills of $60 rather than one of $540. We\n\f2 No. 17-3408\n\nhold, to the contrary, that arithmetic does not affect a debt’s\n“character.” The statutory word “amount” rather than the\nword “character” is what governs reporting the debt’s size.\n Diane Rhone received physical therapy from Illinois\nBone and Joint Institute, which billed her $134 for each ses-\nsion. Insurance covered all but a $60 co-pay per session.\nRhone did not remit her part of the bills, however, and the\nInstitute turned to the Medical Business Bureau for debt col-\nlection. After three years of dunning legers did not work, the\nBureau reported to Equifax that Rhone owes nine debts of\n$60 each. That led to this suit, in which Rhone contends that\nthe Bureau had to report the aggregate debt of $540 rather\nthan nine $60 debts. Judge Der-Yeghiayan agreed with that\nsubmission. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177800 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25,\n2017). After he retired the case was assigned to Judge Ken-\ndall, who imposed a $1,000 penalty. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n188433 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2018).\n The credit report was factually correct. Rhone incurred\nnine debts of $60 each. Judge Der-Yeghiayan did not explain\nwhy the difference between 1 × $540 and 9 × $60 misrepre-\nsents the “character” of a debt. Neither the district judge nor\nRhone offered a definition of the word “character.” Asked at\noral argument whether a debt collector should report one\ndebt, or two, if a person buys two cars from a single dealer\nand does not pay for either car, Rhone’s lawyer replied: “It\nwould depend.” Counsel told us that a judge should consid-\ner “all the facts and circumstances” once litigation is under-\nway. Yet what a court (or for that mager a debt collector)\nneeds is a rule of law to apply to those facts and circum-\nstances. This is a statutory suit, not a common-law action.\nThe word “character” either requires aggregation of debts\n\fNo. 17-3408 3\n\narising from multiple transactions with a single entity, or it\ndoes not.\n The statute refers separately to the “character” and the\n“amount” of a debt. Rhone does not contend that the Bureau\nmisrepresented the “amount” of the debt by telling Equifax\nthat Rhone owes $60 for each of nine medical treatments. We\ncan imagine a regulation specifying whether debts to a sin-\ngle creditor should be aggregated (or perhaps reported both\nsingly and in the aggregate)—consistency contributes to clar-\nity—but Rhone does not point to such a regulation, nor\ncould we find one. One benefit of identifying each amount\nseparately is that a debtor then can identify exactly which\ntransactions are at issue. If the Bureau had reported one $540\ndebt, Rhone might well have asserted that the report was\nmisleading—after all, she does not owe $540 for any transac-\ntion. Per-transaction reporting also shows whether some of\nthe debts are stale (that is, whether the statute of limitations\nbars collection). Consumers and credit bureaus alike may\nfind that information valuable.\n A search through decisions from this court and the other\ncourts of appeals did not turn up any discussing whether\naggregation (or not) of all amounts owed to a single creditor\nconcerns the “character” of a debt. Indeed, few decisions\ndiscuss the meaning of that word in any debt-related con-\ntext. In this circuit, Fields v. Wilbur Law Firm, P.C., 383 F.3d\n562 (7th Cir. 2004), holds that presenting a debt plus agor-\nneys’ fees as a single undifferentiated sum misstates the\ndebt’s character, while Hahn v. Triumph Partnerships LLC, 557\nF.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2009), holds that combining principal and\ninterest does not do so. Agorneys’ fees differ in character\nfrom the main debt, while interest does not. Elsewhere,\n\f4 No. 17-3408\n\nDonohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.\n2010), agrees with Hahn, while Miller v. Javitch, Block &\nRathbone, 561 F.3d 588, 592–94 (6th Cir. 2009), holds that de-\nscribing a debt as a loan rather than an account receivable\ndoes not misstate its character. None of these decisions holds\nor implies that it magers to a debt’s “character” whether\namounts due for individual purchases from a single mer-\nchant are stated separately or as a total.\n The absence of authoritative or even persuasive guidance\nleaves us on our own. To our ears, “character” sounds like a\nreference to the kind of obligation. (That is essentially how\nFields heard it, too.) A secured auto loan would be of one\ncharacter, an unsecured credit-card debt another, a judgment\ndebt a third, and a subordinated debenture (an instrument\njunior by contract) a fourth. Keeping these kinds of obliga-\ntion distinct reduces the potential for confusion about their\nnature and relative priority. But the number of transactions\nbetween a debtor and a single merchant does not affect the\ngenesis, nature, or priority of the debt and so does not con-\ncern its character. The statute names “character, amount, or\nlegal status” as distinct agributes, and it would undercut this\ndisjunction to treat arithmetic as concerning the debt’s\n“character” rather than its “amount.”\n The district court’s opinion, and the parties’ briefs, de-\nvote considerable agention to whether the Bureau made a\nproper report of “tradelines.” This is a word that Equifax us-\nes in the conduct of its own business. It does not appear in\nthe statute or any relevant regulation. (The word “tradeline”\nor the phrase “trade line” appears four times in the Code of\nFederal Regulations. None of the regulations defines it, and\nnone concerns debt collectors’ reports to credit bureaus.)\n\fNo. 17-3408 5\n\nWhether Equifax has a grievance against Medical Business\nBureau—and whether Equifax offers debtors some remedy if\ncreditors or debt collectors err in implementing Equifax’s\npolicies—are neither here nor there for our purposes.\nEquifax might have a duty to correct its report if an error\nwith respect to the number of tradelines affects a consumer’s\ncredit rating. See 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a). But this suit rests on\n§1692e(2)(A), not on Equifax’s vocabulary.\n Medical Business Bureau did not misstate the “character”\nof Rhone’s debt to the Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, so the\njudgment of the district court is\n REVERSED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Diane Rhone v. Medical Business Bureau, LLC\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3408\\nDIANE RHONE,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nMEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 C 5215 — Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. This case is about character—\\nthe character of a debt. A debt collector must not make any\\n“false representation” about “the character, amount, or legal\\nstatus of any debt”. 15 U.S.C. §1692e(2)(A). A district court\\nconcluded that a debt collector misrepresented a debt’s\\n“character” by reporting to a credit bureau that the debtor\\nhad nine unpaid bills of $60 rather than one of $540. We\\n\\f2 No. 17-3408\\n\\nhold, to the contrary, that arithmetic does not affect a debt’s\\n“character.” The statutory word “amount” rather than the\\nword “character” is what governs reporting the debt’s size.\\n Diane Rhone received physical therapy from Illinois\\nBone and Joint Institute, which billed her $134 for each ses-\\nsion. Insurance covered all but a $60 co-pay per session.\\nRhone did not remit her part of the bills, however, and the\\nInstitute turned to the Medical Business Bureau for debt col-\\nlection. After three years of dunning legers did not work, the\\nBureau reported to Equifax that Rhone owes nine debts of\\n$60 each. That led to this suit, in which Rhone contends that\\nthe Bureau had to report the aggregate debt of $540 rather\\nthan nine $60 debts. Judge Der-Yeghiayan agreed with that\\nsubmission. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177800 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25,\\n2017). After he retired the case was assigned to Judge Ken-\\ndall, who imposed a $1,000 penalty. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\\n188433 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2018).\\n The credit report was factually correct. Rhone incurred\\nnine debts of $60 each. Judge Der-Yeghiayan did not explain\\nwhy the difference between 1 × $540 and 9 × $60 misrepre-\\nsents the “character” of a debt. Neither the district judge nor\\nRhone offered a definition of the word “character.” Asked at\\noral argument whether a debt collector should report one\\ndebt, or two, if a person buys two cars from a single dealer\\nand does not pay for either car, Rhone’s lawyer replied: “It\\nwould depend.” Counsel told us that a judge should consid-\\ner “all the facts and circumstances” once litigation is under-\\nway. Yet what a court (or for that mager a debt collector)\\nneeds is a rule of law to apply to those facts and circum-\\nstances. This is a statutory suit, not a common-law action.\\nThe word “character” either requires aggregation of debts\\n\\fNo. 17-3408 3\\n\\narising from multiple transactions with a single entity, or it\\ndoes not.\\n The statute refers separately to the “character” and the\\n“amount” of a debt. Rhone does not contend that the Bureau\\nmisrepresented the “amount” of the debt by telling Equifax\\nthat Rhone owes $60 for each of nine medical treatments. We\\ncan imagine a regulation specifying whether debts to a sin-\\ngle creditor should be aggregated (or perhaps reported both\\nsingly and in the aggregate)—consistency contributes to clar-\\nity—but Rhone does not point to such a regulation, nor\\ncould we find one. One benefit of identifying each amount\\nseparately is that a debtor then can identify exactly which\\ntransactions are at issue. If the Bureau had reported one $540\\ndebt, Rhone might well have asserted that the report was\\nmisleading—after all, she does not owe $540 for any transac-\\ntion. Per-transaction reporting also shows whether some of\\nthe debts are stale (that is, whether the statute of limitations\\nbars collection). Consumers and credit bureaus alike may\\nfind that information valuable.\\n A search through decisions from this court and the other\\ncourts of appeals did not turn up any discussing whether\\naggregation (or not) of all amounts owed to a single creditor\\nconcerns the “character” of a debt. Indeed, few decisions\\ndiscuss the meaning of that word in any debt-related con-\\ntext. In this circuit, Fields v. Wilbur Law Firm, P.C., 383 F.3d\\n562 (7th Cir. 2004), holds that presenting a debt plus agor-\\nneys’ fees as a single undifferentiated sum misstates the\\ndebt’s character, while Hahn v. Triumph Partnerships LLC, 557\\nF.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2009), holds that combining principal and\\ninterest does not do so. Agorneys’ fees differ in character\\nfrom the main debt, while interest does not. Elsewhere,\\n\\f4 No. 17-3408\\n\\nDonohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.\\n2010), agrees with Hahn, while Miller v. Javitch, Block &\\nRathbone, 561 F.3d 588, 592–94 (6th Cir. 2009), holds that de-\\nscribing a debt as a loan rather than an account receivable\\ndoes not misstate its character. None of these decisions holds\\nor implies that it magers to a debt’s “character” whether\\namounts due for individual purchases from a single mer-\\nchant are stated separately or as a total.\\n The absence of authoritative or even persuasive guidance\\nleaves us on our own. To our ears, “character” sounds like a\\nreference to the kind of obligation. (That is essentially how\\nFields heard it, too.) A secured auto loan would be of one\\ncharacter, an unsecured credit-card debt another, a judgment\\ndebt a third, and a subordinated debenture (an instrument\\njunior by contract) a fourth. Keeping these kinds of obliga-\\ntion distinct reduces the potential for confusion about their\\nnature and relative priority. But the number of transactions\\nbetween a debtor and a single merchant does not affect the\\ngenesis, nature, or priority of the debt and so does not con-\\ncern its character. The statute names “character, amount, or\\nlegal status” as distinct agributes, and it would undercut this\\ndisjunction to treat arithmetic as concerning the debt’s\\n“character” rather than its “amount.”\\n The district court’s opinion, and the parties’ briefs, de-\\nvote considerable agention to whether the Bureau made a\\nproper report of “tradelines.” This is a word that Equifax us-\\nes in the conduct of its own business. It does not appear in\\nthe statute or any relevant regulation. (The word “tradeline”\\nor the phrase “trade line” appears four times in the Code of\\nFederal Regulations. None of the regulations defines it, and\\nnone concerns debt collectors’ reports to credit bureaus.)\\n\\fNo. 17-3408 5\\n\\nWhether Equifax has a grievance against Medical Business\\nBureau—and whether Equifax offers debtors some remedy if\\ncreditors or debt collectors err in implementing Equifax’s\\npolicies—are neither here nor there for our purposes.\\nEquifax might have a duty to correct its report if an error\\nwith respect to the number of tradelines affects a consumer’s\\ncredit rating. See 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a). But this suit rests on\\n§1692e(2)(A), not on Equifax’s vocabulary.\\n Medical Business Bureau did not misstate the “character”\\nof Rhone’s debt to the Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, so the\\njudgment of the district court is\\n REVERSED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":676,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":8443875,"string":"8,443,875"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Travis S. VACCARO"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Vaccaro"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 18-1753"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Barrett, Ripple, Wood\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415304/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443875/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Travis S. VACCARO\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Travis S. VACCARO\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":677,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588867,"string":"4,588,867"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Vipul B. PATEL, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ZILLOW, INC., and Zillow Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Vipul Patel v. Zillow, Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2130"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Bauer, Easterbrook, Scudder\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-2130\\nVIPUL B. PATEL, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nZILLOW, INC., and ZILLOW GROUP, INC.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17-CV-4008 — Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 29, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. A Zestimate is an estimated\\nvalue for real estate, available on the Zillow web site for\\nabout 100 million parcels. Zillow generates Zestimates by\\napplying a proprietary algorithm to public data, such as a\\nbuilding’s location, tax assessment, number of rooms, and\\nthe recent selling prices for nearby parcels. But because Zil-\\nlow does not inspect the building, it cannot adjust for the\\nfact that any given parcel may be more a\\\\ractive and be\\\\er\\n\\f2 No. 18-2130\\n\\nmaintained, raising its likely selling price, or the reverse. Zil-\\nlow states that its median error (comparing a Zestimate with\\na later transaction price) is less than 6%, though the Zesti-\\nmate is off by more than 20% in about 15% of all sales. Zil-\\nlow informs users that none of the parcels has been inspect-\\ned and that Zestimates may be inaccurate, though Zillow\\ntouts them as useful starting points.\\n Plaintiffs filed this suit after learning that the Zestimates\\nfor their parcels were below the amounts they hoped to real-\\nize. For example, Vipul Patel listed his home with an asking\\nprice of $1.495 million and contends that the Zestimate of\\n$1,333,350 scared away potential buyers. Plaintiffs asked Zil-\\nlow either to increase the Zestimates for their parcels or re-\\nmove them from the database. When it declined to take ei-\\nther step, they filed this suit, under the diversity jurisdiction,\\ninvoking the Illinois Real Estate Appraiser Licensing Act, 225\\nILCS 458/1 to 458/999-99, which forbids the appraisal of real\\nestate without a license, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive\\nTrade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 to 510/7, which forbids\\nunfair or misleading trade practices. Plaintiffs contend that a\\nZestimate is an appraisal and not only unfair but also mis-\\nleading because (plaintiffs assert) it is inaccurate yet Zillow\\ndoes not accommodate requests for change or removal. The\\nsuit began in state court and was removed to federal court\\nunder the diversity jurisdiction. The district court dismissed\\nall of plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim on which\\nrelief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 2017 U.S.\\nDist. LEXIS 134785 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2017); 2018 U.S. Dist.\\nLEXIS 76245 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2018). The court’s first opinion\\ndismisses the licensing claim with prejudice, and the second\\nterminates all other claims.\\n\\fNo. 18-2130 3\\n\\n The district court’s comprehensive opinions make it un-\\nnecessary for us to write at length. We offer only a few\\nwords to supplement the district judge’s analysis and indi-\\ncate which parts of it undergird our decision.\\n The licensing claim failed in the district court for two\\nprincipal reasons. First, the judge concluded that an “auto-\\nmated valuation model” differs from an “appraisal” as a\\nma\\\\er of law under 225 ILCS 458/5-5(g). 2017 U.S. Dist.\\nLEXIS 134785 at *11–15. Second, the judge held that plaintiffs\\nlack a private right of action to enforce the appraisal statute.\\nId. at *15–26. We affirm for the second reason and need not\\nconsider the first.\\n The licensing statute omits a private right of action. In-\\nstead it makes unlicensed appraisal a Class A misdemeanor\\n(first offense) and a Class 4 felony for any repetition. 225\\nILCS 458/5-5(a). An administrative agency may impose fines\\nof up to $25,000 per unlicensed appraisal, see §458/1-10,\\n458/15-5(a), and issue cease-and-desist le\\\\ers that can be en-\\nforced by injunctions, see §458/15-5(d). Illinois courts create\\na non-statutory private right of action “only in cases where\\nthe statute would be ineffective, as a practical ma\\\\er, unless\\nsuch action were implied.” Me:ger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30,\\n39 (2004) (citation omi\\\\ed). The district court found that the\\nmultiple means of enforcing the licensing act, and the stiff\\npenalties for noncompliance, show that a private action is\\nnot necessary to make the statute effective. We concur.\\n As for the trade practices act, the district judge was right\\nto observe that the statute deals with statements of fact,\\nwhile Zestimates are opinions, which canonically are not ac-\\ntionable. See, e.g., Sampen v. Dabrowski, 222 Ill. App. 3d 918,\\n924–25 (1st Dist. 1991) (where a valuation is explicitly la-\\n\\f4 No. 18-2130\\n\\nbeled an estimate, there is no deception); Hartigan v. Maclean\\nHunter Publishing Corp., 119 Ill. App. 3d 1049, 1059 (1st Dist.\\n1983) (“If clearly labeled as an opinion a qualitative evalua-\\ntion of worth is not a violation of the Act. The Act prohibits\\ndeception rather than error.”). Plaintiffs want us to brush\\nthis rule aside because, they say, Zillow refuses to alter or\\nremove Zestimates on request. This does not make a Zesti-\\nmate less an opinion, however. And plaintiffs are mistaken\\nto think that the accuracy of an algorithmic appraisal system\\ncan be improved by changing or removing particular esti-\\nmates.\\n Suppose plaintiffs are right to think that the Zestimates\\nfor their properties are too low. Removing them from the da-\\ntabase would skew the distribution, because all mistakes\\nthat favored property owners would remain, not offset by er-\\nrors in the other direction. Potential buyers would be made\\nworse off. Suppose instead that plaintiffs are wrong—that\\nthey have overestimated the value of their properties, while\\nthe Zestimates are closer to the truth. Then removing them\\nfrom the database would not just skew the distribution but\\nalso increase the average error of estimates. Potential buyers\\nof plaintiffs’ properties would be deprived of valuable\\nknowledge. Finally, suppose that plaintiffs are behaving\\nstrategically—that they know the Zestimates to be accurate\\n(or at least closer to the likely sales price than are plaintiffs’\\nasking prices). Then removing their parcels from the data-\\nbase, or “correcting” the Zestimates to match plaintiffs’ ask-\\ning prices, would degrade the accuracy of the database as a\\nwhole without any offse\\\\ing benefits to the real-estate mar-\\nket. In general, the accuracy of algorithmic estimates cannot\\nbe improved by plucking some numbers out of the distribu-\\ntion or “improving” others in ways that depart from the al-\\n\\fNo. 18-2130 5\\n\\ngorithm’s output. The process is more accurate, overall,\\nwhen errors are not biased to favor sellers or buyers.\\n That Zillow sells ads to real estate brokers does not affect\\nthe statutory analysis. Having labeled Zestimates as esti-\\nmates (something built into the word “Zestimate”), Zillow is\\noutside the scope of the trade practices act. Almost all web\\nsites, like almost all newspapers and magazines, try to fi-\\nnance their operations by selling ads. That they do so with-\\nout telling customers exactly what pitches are being made to\\npotential advertisers does not convert a declared estimate\\ninto an inaccurate statement of fact.\\n In addition to the trade practices act, plaintiffs invoke the\\nIllinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices\\nAct, 815 ILCS 505/1 to 505/12. The district court’s second\\nopinion shows that this claim fails for essentially the same\\nreasons as the trade practices act claim fails, and for the fur-\\nther reason that plaintiffs are not buyers of real estate. 2018\\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 76245 at *20–26. The subject does not require\\nadditional discussion.\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4366120/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588867/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Vipul B. PATEL, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ZILLOW, INC., and Zillow Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-2130\nVIPUL B. PATEL, et al.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n\n v.\n\nZILLOW, INC., and ZILLOW GROUP, INC.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17-CV-4008 — Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 29, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. A Zestimate is an estimated\nvalue for real estate, available on the Zillow web site for\nabout 100 million parcels. Zillow generates Zestimates by\napplying a proprietary algorithm to public data, such as a\nbuilding’s location, tax assessment, number of rooms, and\nthe recent selling prices for nearby parcels. But because Zil-\nlow does not inspect the building, it cannot adjust for the\nfact that any given parcel may be more a\\ractive and be\\er\n\f2 No. 18-2130\n\nmaintained, raising its likely selling price, or the reverse. Zil-\nlow states that its median error (comparing a Zestimate with\na later transaction price) is less than 6%, though the Zesti-\nmate is off by more than 20% in about 15% of all sales. Zil-\nlow informs users that none of the parcels has been inspect-\ned and that Zestimates may be inaccurate, though Zillow\ntouts them as useful starting points.\n Plaintiffs filed this suit after learning that the Zestimates\nfor their parcels were below the amounts they hoped to real-\nize. For example, Vipul Patel listed his home with an asking\nprice of $1.495 million and contends that the Zestimate of\n$1,333,350 scared away potential buyers. Plaintiffs asked Zil-\nlow either to increase the Zestimates for their parcels or re-\nmove them from the database. When it declined to take ei-\nther step, they filed this suit, under the diversity jurisdiction,\ninvoking the Illinois Real Estate Appraiser Licensing Act, 225\nILCS 458/1 to 458/999-99, which forbids the appraisal of real\nestate without a license, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive\nTrade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 to 510/7, which forbids\nunfair or misleading trade practices. Plaintiffs contend that a\nZestimate is an appraisal and not only unfair but also mis-\nleading because (plaintiffs assert) it is inaccurate yet Zillow\ndoes not accommodate requests for change or removal. The\nsuit began in state court and was removed to federal court\nunder the diversity jurisdiction. The district court dismissed\nall of plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim on which\nrelief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 2017 U.S.\nDist. LEXIS 134785 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2017); 2018 U.S. Dist.\nLEXIS 76245 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2018). The court’s first opinion\ndismisses the licensing claim with prejudice, and the second\nterminates all other claims.\n\fNo. 18-2130 3\n\n The district court’s comprehensive opinions make it un-\nnecessary for us to write at length. We offer only a few\nwords to supplement the district judge’s analysis and indi-\ncate which parts of it undergird our decision.\n The licensing claim failed in the district court for two\nprincipal reasons. First, the judge concluded that an “auto-\nmated valuation model” differs from an “appraisal” as a\nma\\er of law under 225 ILCS 458/5-5(g). 2017 U.S. Dist.\nLEXIS 134785 at *11–15. Second, the judge held that plaintiffs\nlack a private right of action to enforce the appraisal statute.\nId. at *15–26. We affirm for the second reason and need not\nconsider the first.\n The licensing statute omits a private right of action. In-\nstead it makes unlicensed appraisal a Class A misdemeanor\n(first offense) and a Class 4 felony for any repetition. 225\nILCS 458/5-5(a). An administrative agency may impose fines\nof up to $25,000 per unlicensed appraisal, see §458/1-10,\n458/15-5(a), and issue cease-and-desist le\\ers that can be en-\nforced by injunctions, see §458/15-5(d). Illinois courts create\na non-statutory private right of action “only in cases where\nthe statute would be ineffective, as a practical ma\\er, unless\nsuch action were implied.” Me:ger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30,\n39 (2004) (citation omi\\ed). The district court found that the\nmultiple means of enforcing the licensing act, and the stiff\npenalties for noncompliance, show that a private action is\nnot necessary to make the statute effective. We concur.\n As for the trade practices act, the district judge was right\nto observe that the statute deals with statements of fact,\nwhile Zestimates are opinions, which canonically are not ac-\ntionable. See, e.g., Sampen v. Dabrowski, 222 Ill. App. 3d 918,\n924–25 (1st Dist. 1991) (where a valuation is explicitly la-\n\f4 No. 18-2130\n\nbeled an estimate, there is no deception); Hartigan v. Maclean\nHunter Publishing Corp., 119 Ill. App. 3d 1049, 1059 (1st Dist.\n1983) (“If clearly labeled as an opinion a qualitative evalua-\ntion of worth is not a violation of the Act. The Act prohibits\ndeception rather than error.”). Plaintiffs want us to brush\nthis rule aside because, they say, Zillow refuses to alter or\nremove Zestimates on request. This does not make a Zesti-\nmate less an opinion, however. And plaintiffs are mistaken\nto think that the accuracy of an algorithmic appraisal system\ncan be improved by changing or removing particular esti-\nmates.\n Suppose plaintiffs are right to think that the Zestimates\nfor their properties are too low. Removing them from the da-\ntabase would skew the distribution, because all mistakes\nthat favored property owners would remain, not offset by er-\nrors in the other direction. Potential buyers would be made\nworse off. Suppose instead that plaintiffs are wrong—that\nthey have overestimated the value of their properties, while\nthe Zestimates are closer to the truth. Then removing them\nfrom the database would not just skew the distribution but\nalso increase the average error of estimates. Potential buyers\nof plaintiffs’ properties would be deprived of valuable\nknowledge. Finally, suppose that plaintiffs are behaving\nstrategically—that they know the Zestimates to be accurate\n(or at least closer to the likely sales price than are plaintiffs’\nasking prices). Then removing their parcels from the data-\nbase, or “correcting” the Zestimates to match plaintiffs’ ask-\ning prices, would degrade the accuracy of the database as a\nwhole without any offse\\ing benefits to the real-estate mar-\nket. In general, the accuracy of algorithmic estimates cannot\nbe improved by plucking some numbers out of the distribu-\ntion or “improving” others in ways that depart from the al-\n\fNo. 18-2130 5\n\ngorithm’s output. The process is more accurate, overall,\nwhen errors are not biased to favor sellers or buyers.\n That Zillow sells ads to real estate brokers does not affect\nthe statutory analysis. Having labeled Zestimates as esti-\nmates (something built into the word “Zestimate”), Zillow is\noutside the scope of the trade practices act. Almost all web\nsites, like almost all newspapers and magazines, try to fi-\nnance their operations by selling ads. That they do so with-\nout telling customers exactly what pitches are being made to\npotential advertisers does not convert a declared estimate\ninto an inaccurate statement of fact.\n In addition to the trade practices act, plaintiffs invoke the\nIllinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices\nAct, 815 ILCS 505/1 to 505/12. The district court’s second\nopinion shows that this claim fails for essentially the same\nreasons as the trade practices act claim fails, and for the fur-\nther reason that plaintiffs are not buyers of real estate. 2018\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 76245 at *20–26. The subject does not require\nadditional discussion.\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Vipul B. PATEL, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ZILLOW, INC., and Zillow Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-2130\\nVIPUL B. PATEL, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nZILLOW, INC., and ZILLOW GROUP, INC.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17-CV-4008 — Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 29, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. A Zestimate is an estimated\\nvalue for real estate, available on the Zillow web site for\\nabout 100 million parcels. Zillow generates Zestimates by\\napplying a proprietary algorithm to public data, such as a\\nbuilding’s location, tax assessment, number of rooms, and\\nthe recent selling prices for nearby parcels. But because Zil-\\nlow does not inspect the building, it cannot adjust for the\\nfact that any given parcel may be more a\\\\ractive and be\\\\er\\n\\f2 No. 18-2130\\n\\nmaintained, raising its likely selling price, or the reverse. Zil-\\nlow states that its median error (comparing a Zestimate with\\na later transaction price) is less than 6%, though the Zesti-\\nmate is off by more than 20% in about 15% of all sales. Zil-\\nlow informs users that none of the parcels has been inspect-\\ned and that Zestimates may be inaccurate, though Zillow\\ntouts them as useful starting points.\\n Plaintiffs filed this suit after learning that the Zestimates\\nfor their parcels were below the amounts they hoped to real-\\nize. For example, Vipul Patel listed his home with an asking\\nprice of $1.495 million and contends that the Zestimate of\\n$1,333,350 scared away potential buyers. Plaintiffs asked Zil-\\nlow either to increase the Zestimates for their parcels or re-\\nmove them from the database. When it declined to take ei-\\nther step, they filed this suit, under the diversity jurisdiction,\\ninvoking the Illinois Real Estate Appraiser Licensing Act, 225\\nILCS 458/1 to 458/999-99, which forbids the appraisal of real\\nestate without a license, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive\\nTrade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 to 510/7, which forbids\\nunfair or misleading trade practices. Plaintiffs contend that a\\nZestimate is an appraisal and not only unfair but also mis-\\nleading because (plaintiffs assert) it is inaccurate yet Zillow\\ndoes not accommodate requests for change or removal. The\\nsuit began in state court and was removed to federal court\\nunder the diversity jurisdiction. The district court dismissed\\nall of plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim on which\\nrelief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 2017 U.S.\\nDist. LEXIS 134785 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2017); 2018 U.S. Dist.\\nLEXIS 76245 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2018). The court’s first opinion\\ndismisses the licensing claim with prejudice, and the second\\nterminates all other claims.\\n\\fNo. 18-2130 3\\n\\n The district court’s comprehensive opinions make it un-\\nnecessary for us to write at length. We offer only a few\\nwords to supplement the district judge’s analysis and indi-\\ncate which parts of it undergird our decision.\\n The licensing claim failed in the district court for two\\nprincipal reasons. First, the judge concluded that an “auto-\\nmated valuation model” differs from an “appraisal” as a\\nma\\\\er of law under 225 ILCS 458/5-5(g). 2017 U.S. Dist.\\nLEXIS 134785 at *11–15. Second, the judge held that plaintiffs\\nlack a private right of action to enforce the appraisal statute.\\nId. at *15–26. We affirm for the second reason and need not\\nconsider the first.\\n The licensing statute omits a private right of action. In-\\nstead it makes unlicensed appraisal a Class A misdemeanor\\n(first offense) and a Class 4 felony for any repetition. 225\\nILCS 458/5-5(a). An administrative agency may impose fines\\nof up to $25,000 per unlicensed appraisal, see §458/1-10,\\n458/15-5(a), and issue cease-and-desist le\\\\ers that can be en-\\nforced by injunctions, see §458/15-5(d). Illinois courts create\\na non-statutory private right of action “only in cases where\\nthe statute would be ineffective, as a practical ma\\\\er, unless\\nsuch action were implied.” Me:ger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30,\\n39 (2004) (citation omi\\\\ed). The district court found that the\\nmultiple means of enforcing the licensing act, and the stiff\\npenalties for noncompliance, show that a private action is\\nnot necessary to make the statute effective. We concur.\\n As for the trade practices act, the district judge was right\\nto observe that the statute deals with statements of fact,\\nwhile Zestimates are opinions, which canonically are not ac-\\ntionable. See, e.g., Sampen v. Dabrowski, 222 Ill. App. 3d 918,\\n924–25 (1st Dist. 1991) (where a valuation is explicitly la-\\n\\f4 No. 18-2130\\n\\nbeled an estimate, there is no deception); Hartigan v. Maclean\\nHunter Publishing Corp., 119 Ill. App. 3d 1049, 1059 (1st Dist.\\n1983) (“If clearly labeled as an opinion a qualitative evalua-\\ntion of worth is not a violation of the Act. The Act prohibits\\ndeception rather than error.”). Plaintiffs want us to brush\\nthis rule aside because, they say, Zillow refuses to alter or\\nremove Zestimates on request. This does not make a Zesti-\\nmate less an opinion, however. And plaintiffs are mistaken\\nto think that the accuracy of an algorithmic appraisal system\\ncan be improved by changing or removing particular esti-\\nmates.\\n Suppose plaintiffs are right to think that the Zestimates\\nfor their properties are too low. Removing them from the da-\\ntabase would skew the distribution, because all mistakes\\nthat favored property owners would remain, not offset by er-\\nrors in the other direction. Potential buyers would be made\\nworse off. Suppose instead that plaintiffs are wrong—that\\nthey have overestimated the value of their properties, while\\nthe Zestimates are closer to the truth. Then removing them\\nfrom the database would not just skew the distribution but\\nalso increase the average error of estimates. Potential buyers\\nof plaintiffs’ properties would be deprived of valuable\\nknowledge. Finally, suppose that plaintiffs are behaving\\nstrategically—that they know the Zestimates to be accurate\\n(or at least closer to the likely sales price than are plaintiffs’\\nasking prices). Then removing their parcels from the data-\\nbase, or “correcting” the Zestimates to match plaintiffs’ ask-\\ning prices, would degrade the accuracy of the database as a\\nwhole without any offse\\\\ing benefits to the real-estate mar-\\nket. In general, the accuracy of algorithmic estimates cannot\\nbe improved by plucking some numbers out of the distribu-\\ntion or “improving” others in ways that depart from the al-\\n\\fNo. 18-2130 5\\n\\ngorithm’s output. The process is more accurate, overall,\\nwhen errors are not biased to favor sellers or buyers.\\n That Zillow sells ads to real estate brokers does not affect\\nthe statutory analysis. Having labeled Zestimates as esti-\\nmates (something built into the word “Zestimate”), Zillow is\\noutside the scope of the trade practices act. Almost all web\\nsites, like almost all newspapers and magazines, try to fi-\\nnance their operations by selling ads. That they do so with-\\nout telling customers exactly what pitches are being made to\\npotential advertisers does not convert a declared estimate\\ninto an inaccurate statement of fact.\\n In addition to the trade practices act, plaintiffs invoke the\\nIllinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices\\nAct, 815 ILCS 505/1 to 505/12. The district court’s second\\nopinion shows that this claim fails for essentially the same\\nreasons as the trade practices act claim fails, and for the fur-\\nther reason that plaintiffs are not buyers of real estate. 2018\\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 76245 at *20–26. The subject does not require\\nadditional discussion.\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":678,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588978,"string":"4,588,978"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Vipul Patel v. Zillow, Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2130"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-2130\\nVIPUL B. PATEL, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nZILLOW, INC., and ZILLOW GROUP, INC.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17-CV-4008 — Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 29, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. A Zestimate is an estimated\\nvalue for real estate, available on the Zillow web site for\\nabout 100 million parcels. Zillow generates Zestimates by\\napplying a proprietary algorithm to public data, such as a\\nbuilding’s location, tax assessment, number of rooms, and\\nthe recent selling prices for nearby parcels. But because Zil-\\nlow does not inspect the building, it cannot adjust for the\\nfact that any given parcel may be more a\\\\ractive and be\\\\er\\n\\f2 No. 18-2130\\n\\nmaintained, raising its likely selling price, or the reverse. Zil-\\nlow states that its median error (comparing a Zestimate with\\na later transaction price) is less than 6%, though the Zesti-\\nmate is off by more than 20% in about 15% of all sales. Zil-\\nlow informs users that none of the parcels has been inspect-\\ned and that Zestimates may be inaccurate, though Zillow\\ntouts them as useful starting points.\\n Plaintiffs filed this suit after learning that the Zestimates\\nfor their parcels were below the amounts they hoped to real-\\nize. For example, Vipul Patel listed his home with an asking\\nprice of $1.495 million and contends that the Zestimate of\\n$1,333,350 scared away potential buyers. Plaintiffs asked Zil-\\nlow either to increase the Zestimates for their parcels or re-\\nmove them from the database. When it declined to take ei-\\nther step, they filed this suit, under the diversity jurisdiction,\\ninvoking the Illinois Real Estate Appraiser Licensing Act, 225\\nILCS 458/1 to 458/999-99, which forbids the appraisal of real\\nestate without a license, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive\\nTrade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 to 510/7, which forbids\\nunfair or misleading trade practices. Plaintiffs contend that a\\nZestimate is an appraisal and not only unfair but also mis-\\nleading because (plaintiffs assert) it is inaccurate yet Zillow\\ndoes not accommodate requests for change or removal. The\\nsuit began in state court and was removed to federal court\\nunder the diversity jurisdiction. The district court dismissed\\nall of plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim on which\\nrelief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 2017 U.S.\\nDist. LEXIS 134785 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2017); 2018 U.S. Dist.\\nLEXIS 76245 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2018). The court’s first opinion\\ndismisses the licensing claim with prejudice, and the second\\nterminates all other claims.\\n\\fNo. 18-2130 3\\n\\n The district court’s comprehensive opinions make it un-\\nnecessary for us to write at length. We offer only a few\\nwords to supplement the district judge’s analysis and indi-\\ncate which parts of it undergird our decision.\\n The licensing claim failed in the district court for two\\nprincipal reasons. First, the judge concluded that an “auto-\\nmated valuation model” differs from an “appraisal” as a\\nma\\\\er of law under 225 ILCS 458/5-5(g). 2017 U.S. Dist.\\nLEXIS 134785 at *11–15. Second, the judge held that plaintiffs\\nlack a private right of action to enforce the appraisal statute.\\nId. at *15–26. We affirm for the second reason and need not\\nconsider the first.\\n The licensing statute omits a private right of action. In-\\nstead it makes unlicensed appraisal a Class A misdemeanor\\n(first offense) and a Class 4 felony for any repetition. 225\\nILCS 458/5-5(a). An administrative agency may impose fines\\nof up to $25,000 per unlicensed appraisal, see §458/1-10,\\n458/15-5(a), and issue cease-and-desist le\\\\ers that can be en-\\nforced by injunctions, see §458/15-5(d). Illinois courts create\\na non-statutory private right of action “only in cases where\\nthe statute would be ineffective, as a practical ma\\\\er, unless\\nsuch action were implied.” Me:ger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30,\\n39 (2004) (citation omi\\\\ed). The district court found that the\\nmultiple means of enforcing the licensing act, and the stiff\\npenalties for noncompliance, show that a private action is\\nnot necessary to make the statute effective. We concur.\\n As for the trade practices act, the district judge was right\\nto observe that the statute deals with statements of fact,\\nwhile Zestimates are opinions, which canonically are not ac-\\ntionable. See, e.g., Sampen v. Dabrowski, 222 Ill. App. 3d 918,\\n924–25 (1st Dist. 1991) (where a valuation is explicitly la-\\n\\f4 No. 18-2130\\n\\nbeled an estimate, there is no deception); Hartigan v. Maclean\\nHunter Publishing Corp., 119 Ill. App. 3d 1049, 1059 (1st Dist.\\n1983) (“If clearly labeled as an opinion a qualitative evalua-\\ntion of worth is not a violation of the Act. The Act prohibits\\ndeception rather than error.”). Plaintiffs want us to brush\\nthis rule aside because, they say, Zillow refuses to alter or\\nremove Zestimates on request. This does not make a Zesti-\\nmate less an opinion, however. And plaintiffs are mistaken\\nto think that the accuracy of an algorithmic appraisal system\\ncan be improved by changing or removing particular esti-\\nmates.\\n Suppose plaintiffs are right to think that the Zestimates\\nfor their properties are too low. Removing them from the da-\\ntabase would skew the distribution, because all mistakes\\nthat favored property owners would remain, not offset by er-\\nrors in the other direction. Potential buyers would be made\\nworse off. Suppose instead that plaintiffs are wrong—that\\nthey have overestimated the value of their properties, while\\nthe Zestimates are closer to the truth. Then removing them\\nfrom the database would not just skew the distribution but\\nalso increase the average error of estimates. Potential buyers\\nof plaintiffs’ properties would be deprived of valuable\\nknowledge. Finally, suppose that plaintiffs are behaving\\nstrategically—that they know the Zestimates to be accurate\\n(or at least closer to the likely sales price than are plaintiffs’\\nasking prices). Then removing their parcels from the data-\\nbase, or “correcting” the Zestimates to match plaintiffs’ ask-\\ning prices, would degrade the accuracy of the database as a\\nwhole without any offse\\\\ing benefits to the real-estate mar-\\nket. In general, the accuracy of algorithmic estimates cannot\\nbe improved by plucking some numbers out of the distribu-\\ntion or “improving” others in ways that depart from the al-\\n\\fNo. 18-2130 5\\n\\ngorithm’s output. The process is more accurate, overall,\\nwhen errors are not biased to favor sellers or buyers.\\n That Zillow sells ads to real estate brokers does not affect\\nthe statutory analysis. Having labeled Zestimates as esti-\\nmates (something built into the word “Zestimate”), Zillow is\\noutside the scope of the trade practices act. Almost all web\\nsites, like almost all newspapers and magazines, try to fi-\\nnance their operations by selling ads. That they do so with-\\nout telling customers exactly what pitches are being made to\\npotential advertisers does not convert a declared estimate\\ninto an inaccurate statement of fact.\\n In addition to the trade practices act, plaintiffs invoke the\\nIllinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices\\nAct, 815 ILCS 505/1 to 505/12. The district court’s second\\nopinion shows that this claim fails for essentially the same\\nreasons as the trade practices act claim fails, and for the fur-\\nther reason that plaintiffs are not buyers of real estate. 2018\\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 76245 at *20–26. The subject does not require\\nadditional discussion.\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4366231/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588978/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Vipul Patel v. Zillow, Inc.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-2130\nVIPUL B. PATEL, et al.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n\n v.\n\nZILLOW, INC., and ZILLOW GROUP, INC.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17-CV-4008 — Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 29, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. A Zestimate is an estimated\nvalue for real estate, available on the Zillow web site for\nabout 100 million parcels. Zillow generates Zestimates by\napplying a proprietary algorithm to public data, such as a\nbuilding’s location, tax assessment, number of rooms, and\nthe recent selling prices for nearby parcels. But because Zil-\nlow does not inspect the building, it cannot adjust for the\nfact that any given parcel may be more a\\ractive and be\\er\n\f2 No. 18-2130\n\nmaintained, raising its likely selling price, or the reverse. Zil-\nlow states that its median error (comparing a Zestimate with\na later transaction price) is less than 6%, though the Zesti-\nmate is off by more than 20% in about 15% of all sales. Zil-\nlow informs users that none of the parcels has been inspect-\ned and that Zestimates may be inaccurate, though Zillow\ntouts them as useful starting points.\n Plaintiffs filed this suit after learning that the Zestimates\nfor their parcels were below the amounts they hoped to real-\nize. For example, Vipul Patel listed his home with an asking\nprice of $1.495 million and contends that the Zestimate of\n$1,333,350 scared away potential buyers. Plaintiffs asked Zil-\nlow either to increase the Zestimates for their parcels or re-\nmove them from the database. When it declined to take ei-\nther step, they filed this suit, under the diversity jurisdiction,\ninvoking the Illinois Real Estate Appraiser Licensing Act, 225\nILCS 458/1 to 458/999-99, which forbids the appraisal of real\nestate without a license, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive\nTrade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 to 510/7, which forbids\nunfair or misleading trade practices. Plaintiffs contend that a\nZestimate is an appraisal and not only unfair but also mis-\nleading because (plaintiffs assert) it is inaccurate yet Zillow\ndoes not accommodate requests for change or removal. The\nsuit began in state court and was removed to federal court\nunder the diversity jurisdiction. The district court dismissed\nall of plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim on which\nrelief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 2017 U.S.\nDist. LEXIS 134785 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2017); 2018 U.S. Dist.\nLEXIS 76245 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2018). The court’s first opinion\ndismisses the licensing claim with prejudice, and the second\nterminates all other claims.\n\fNo. 18-2130 3\n\n The district court’s comprehensive opinions make it un-\nnecessary for us to write at length. We offer only a few\nwords to supplement the district judge’s analysis and indi-\ncate which parts of it undergird our decision.\n The licensing claim failed in the district court for two\nprincipal reasons. First, the judge concluded that an “auto-\nmated valuation model” differs from an “appraisal” as a\nma\\er of law under 225 ILCS 458/5-5(g). 2017 U.S. Dist.\nLEXIS 134785 at *11–15. Second, the judge held that plaintiffs\nlack a private right of action to enforce the appraisal statute.\nId. at *15–26. We affirm for the second reason and need not\nconsider the first.\n The licensing statute omits a private right of action. In-\nstead it makes unlicensed appraisal a Class A misdemeanor\n(first offense) and a Class 4 felony for any repetition. 225\nILCS 458/5-5(a). An administrative agency may impose fines\nof up to $25,000 per unlicensed appraisal, see §458/1-10,\n458/15-5(a), and issue cease-and-desist le\\ers that can be en-\nforced by injunctions, see §458/15-5(d). Illinois courts create\na non-statutory private right of action “only in cases where\nthe statute would be ineffective, as a practical ma\\er, unless\nsuch action were implied.” Me:ger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30,\n39 (2004) (citation omi\\ed). The district court found that the\nmultiple means of enforcing the licensing act, and the stiff\npenalties for noncompliance, show that a private action is\nnot necessary to make the statute effective. We concur.\n As for the trade practices act, the district judge was right\nto observe that the statute deals with statements of fact,\nwhile Zestimates are opinions, which canonically are not ac-\ntionable. See, e.g., Sampen v. Dabrowski, 222 Ill. App. 3d 918,\n924–25 (1st Dist. 1991) (where a valuation is explicitly la-\n\f4 No. 18-2130\n\nbeled an estimate, there is no deception); Hartigan v. Maclean\nHunter Publishing Corp., 119 Ill. App. 3d 1049, 1059 (1st Dist.\n1983) (“If clearly labeled as an opinion a qualitative evalua-\ntion of worth is not a violation of the Act. The Act prohibits\ndeception rather than error.”). Plaintiffs want us to brush\nthis rule aside because, they say, Zillow refuses to alter or\nremove Zestimates on request. This does not make a Zesti-\nmate less an opinion, however. And plaintiffs are mistaken\nto think that the accuracy of an algorithmic appraisal system\ncan be improved by changing or removing particular esti-\nmates.\n Suppose plaintiffs are right to think that the Zestimates\nfor their properties are too low. Removing them from the da-\ntabase would skew the distribution, because all mistakes\nthat favored property owners would remain, not offset by er-\nrors in the other direction. Potential buyers would be made\nworse off. Suppose instead that plaintiffs are wrong—that\nthey have overestimated the value of their properties, while\nthe Zestimates are closer to the truth. Then removing them\nfrom the database would not just skew the distribution but\nalso increase the average error of estimates. Potential buyers\nof plaintiffs’ properties would be deprived of valuable\nknowledge. Finally, suppose that plaintiffs are behaving\nstrategically—that they know the Zestimates to be accurate\n(or at least closer to the likely sales price than are plaintiffs’\nasking prices). Then removing their parcels from the data-\nbase, or “correcting” the Zestimates to match plaintiffs’ ask-\ning prices, would degrade the accuracy of the database as a\nwhole without any offse\\ing benefits to the real-estate mar-\nket. In general, the accuracy of algorithmic estimates cannot\nbe improved by plucking some numbers out of the distribu-\ntion or “improving” others in ways that depart from the al-\n\fNo. 18-2130 5\n\ngorithm’s output. The process is more accurate, overall,\nwhen errors are not biased to favor sellers or buyers.\n That Zillow sells ads to real estate brokers does not affect\nthe statutory analysis. Having labeled Zestimates as esti-\nmates (something built into the word “Zestimate”), Zillow is\noutside the scope of the trade practices act. Almost all web\nsites, like almost all newspapers and magazines, try to fi-\nnance their operations by selling ads. That they do so with-\nout telling customers exactly what pitches are being made to\npotential advertisers does not convert a declared estimate\ninto an inaccurate statement of fact.\n In addition to the trade practices act, plaintiffs invoke the\nIllinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices\nAct, 815 ILCS 505/1 to 505/12. The district court’s second\nopinion shows that this claim fails for essentially the same\nreasons as the trade practices act claim fails, and for the fur-\nther reason that plaintiffs are not buyers of real estate. 2018\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 76245 at *20–26. The subject does not require\nadditional discussion.\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Vipul Patel v. Zillow, Inc.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-2130\\nVIPUL B. PATEL, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nZILLOW, INC., and ZILLOW GROUP, INC.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17-CV-4008 — Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 29, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. A Zestimate is an estimated\\nvalue for real estate, available on the Zillow web site for\\nabout 100 million parcels. Zillow generates Zestimates by\\napplying a proprietary algorithm to public data, such as a\\nbuilding’s location, tax assessment, number of rooms, and\\nthe recent selling prices for nearby parcels. But because Zil-\\nlow does not inspect the building, it cannot adjust for the\\nfact that any given parcel may be more a\\\\ractive and be\\\\er\\n\\f2 No. 18-2130\\n\\nmaintained, raising its likely selling price, or the reverse. Zil-\\nlow states that its median error (comparing a Zestimate with\\na later transaction price) is less than 6%, though the Zesti-\\nmate is off by more than 20% in about 15% of all sales. Zil-\\nlow informs users that none of the parcels has been inspect-\\ned and that Zestimates may be inaccurate, though Zillow\\ntouts them as useful starting points.\\n Plaintiffs filed this suit after learning that the Zestimates\\nfor their parcels were below the amounts they hoped to real-\\nize. For example, Vipul Patel listed his home with an asking\\nprice of $1.495 million and contends that the Zestimate of\\n$1,333,350 scared away potential buyers. Plaintiffs asked Zil-\\nlow either to increase the Zestimates for their parcels or re-\\nmove them from the database. When it declined to take ei-\\nther step, they filed this suit, under the diversity jurisdiction,\\ninvoking the Illinois Real Estate Appraiser Licensing Act, 225\\nILCS 458/1 to 458/999-99, which forbids the appraisal of real\\nestate without a license, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive\\nTrade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 to 510/7, which forbids\\nunfair or misleading trade practices. Plaintiffs contend that a\\nZestimate is an appraisal and not only unfair but also mis-\\nleading because (plaintiffs assert) it is inaccurate yet Zillow\\ndoes not accommodate requests for change or removal. The\\nsuit began in state court and was removed to federal court\\nunder the diversity jurisdiction. The district court dismissed\\nall of plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim on which\\nrelief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 2017 U.S.\\nDist. LEXIS 134785 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2017); 2018 U.S. Dist.\\nLEXIS 76245 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2018). The court’s first opinion\\ndismisses the licensing claim with prejudice, and the second\\nterminates all other claims.\\n\\fNo. 18-2130 3\\n\\n The district court’s comprehensive opinions make it un-\\nnecessary for us to write at length. We offer only a few\\nwords to supplement the district judge’s analysis and indi-\\ncate which parts of it undergird our decision.\\n The licensing claim failed in the district court for two\\nprincipal reasons. First, the judge concluded that an “auto-\\nmated valuation model” differs from an “appraisal” as a\\nma\\\\er of law under 225 ILCS 458/5-5(g). 2017 U.S. Dist.\\nLEXIS 134785 at *11–15. Second, the judge held that plaintiffs\\nlack a private right of action to enforce the appraisal statute.\\nId. at *15–26. We affirm for the second reason and need not\\nconsider the first.\\n The licensing statute omits a private right of action. In-\\nstead it makes unlicensed appraisal a Class A misdemeanor\\n(first offense) and a Class 4 felony for any repetition. 225\\nILCS 458/5-5(a). An administrative agency may impose fines\\nof up to $25,000 per unlicensed appraisal, see §458/1-10,\\n458/15-5(a), and issue cease-and-desist le\\\\ers that can be en-\\nforced by injunctions, see §458/15-5(d). Illinois courts create\\na non-statutory private right of action “only in cases where\\nthe statute would be ineffective, as a practical ma\\\\er, unless\\nsuch action were implied.” Me:ger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30,\\n39 (2004) (citation omi\\\\ed). The district court found that the\\nmultiple means of enforcing the licensing act, and the stiff\\npenalties for noncompliance, show that a private action is\\nnot necessary to make the statute effective. We concur.\\n As for the trade practices act, the district judge was right\\nto observe that the statute deals with statements of fact,\\nwhile Zestimates are opinions, which canonically are not ac-\\ntionable. See, e.g., Sampen v. Dabrowski, 222 Ill. App. 3d 918,\\n924–25 (1st Dist. 1991) (where a valuation is explicitly la-\\n\\f4 No. 18-2130\\n\\nbeled an estimate, there is no deception); Hartigan v. Maclean\\nHunter Publishing Corp., 119 Ill. App. 3d 1049, 1059 (1st Dist.\\n1983) (“If clearly labeled as an opinion a qualitative evalua-\\ntion of worth is not a violation of the Act. The Act prohibits\\ndeception rather than error.”). Plaintiffs want us to brush\\nthis rule aside because, they say, Zillow refuses to alter or\\nremove Zestimates on request. This does not make a Zesti-\\nmate less an opinion, however. And plaintiffs are mistaken\\nto think that the accuracy of an algorithmic appraisal system\\ncan be improved by changing or removing particular esti-\\nmates.\\n Suppose plaintiffs are right to think that the Zestimates\\nfor their properties are too low. Removing them from the da-\\ntabase would skew the distribution, because all mistakes\\nthat favored property owners would remain, not offset by er-\\nrors in the other direction. Potential buyers would be made\\nworse off. Suppose instead that plaintiffs are wrong—that\\nthey have overestimated the value of their properties, while\\nthe Zestimates are closer to the truth. Then removing them\\nfrom the database would not just skew the distribution but\\nalso increase the average error of estimates. Potential buyers\\nof plaintiffs’ properties would be deprived of valuable\\nknowledge. Finally, suppose that plaintiffs are behaving\\nstrategically—that they know the Zestimates to be accurate\\n(or at least closer to the likely sales price than are plaintiffs’\\nasking prices). Then removing their parcels from the data-\\nbase, or “correcting” the Zestimates to match plaintiffs’ ask-\\ning prices, would degrade the accuracy of the database as a\\nwhole without any offse\\\\ing benefits to the real-estate mar-\\nket. In general, the accuracy of algorithmic estimates cannot\\nbe improved by plucking some numbers out of the distribu-\\ntion or “improving” others in ways that depart from the al-\\n\\fNo. 18-2130 5\\n\\ngorithm’s output. The process is more accurate, overall,\\nwhen errors are not biased to favor sellers or buyers.\\n That Zillow sells ads to real estate brokers does not affect\\nthe statutory analysis. Having labeled Zestimates as esti-\\nmates (something built into the word “Zestimate”), Zillow is\\noutside the scope of the trade practices act. Almost all web\\nsites, like almost all newspapers and magazines, try to fi-\\nnance their operations by selling ads. That they do so with-\\nout telling customers exactly what pitches are being made to\\npotential advertisers does not convert a declared estimate\\ninto an inaccurate statement of fact.\\n In addition to the trade practices act, plaintiffs invoke the\\nIllinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices\\nAct, 815 ILCS 505/1 to 505/12. The district court’s second\\nopinion shows that this claim fails for essentially the same\\nreasons as the trade practices act claim fails, and for the fur-\\nther reason that plaintiffs are not buyers of real estate. 2018\\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 76245 at *20–26. The subject does not require\\nadditional discussion.\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":679,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588979,"string":"4,588,979"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben DELHORNO, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Ruben Delhorno"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1707"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Kanne, Hamilton, Eve\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"David Frank Hamilton\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1707\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nRUBEN DELHORNO,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 11-CR-46 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Defendant-appellant Ruben Del-\\nhorno filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis, a rare form of\\ncollateral attack on a criminal judgment. This ancient com-\\nmon-law remedy is available to correct errors of fact and law\\nin criminal cases, but only when: “(1) the error alleged is ‘of\\nthe most fundamental character’ as to render the criminal con-\\nviction ‘invalid’; (2) there are ‘sound reasons’ for the defend-\\nant’s ‘failure to seek earlier relief’; and (3) ‘the defendant\\n\\f2 No. 18-1707\\n\\ncontinues to suffer from his conviction even though he is out\\nof custody.’” United States v. Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 368 (7th\\nCir. 2016), citing United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685, 697 (7th\\nCir. 2007), and United States v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199, 203 (7th\\nCir. 1988). Delhorno fails the second requirement. He cannot\\noffer “sound reasons” for failing to seek earlier relief through\\na direct appeal or habeas corpus petition. We therefore affirm\\nthe district court’s decision denying Delhorno’s writ of coram\\nnobis.\\nI. Factual and Procedural Background\\n Delhorno, age 42, was born in Mexico but came to the\\nUnited States with his parents when he was just three years\\nold. He was living in the United States as a lawful permanent\\nresident. (He could have applied for citizenship but never\\ndid.) In 2011, Delhorno was pulled over for speeding. While\\nthe officer was writing a speeding ticket, another officer ar-\\nrived with his drug-detection canine. The dog sniffed the ve-\\nhicle and alerted to the presence of drugs. Another officer at\\nthe scene had been instructed in the installation of “trap”\\ncompartments in vehicles and noticed that Delhorno’s vehicle\\ncontained unusual wiring. The officers discovered four kilo-\\ngrams of cocaine in a trap compartment in Delhorno’s vehicle.\\n Delhorno was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern Dis-\\ntrict of Wisconsin for one count of possessing cocaine with in-\\ntent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) &\\n841(b)(1)(B). Delhorno pleaded guilty to the indictment on\\nJanuary 26, 2012. At the change of plea hearing, Delhorno\\nstated that he was born in Mexico and was a permanent resi-\\ndent of the United States. However, there was no discussion\\nabout the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, even\\nthough the hearing took place more than a year after the\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 3\\n\\nSupreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010),\\nthat a criminal defense lawyer provided ineffective assistance\\nof counsel by failing to advise his client that his guilty plea\\nwould subject him to automatic deportation.\\n Following the change of plea hearing, the United States\\nProbation Office prepared a presentence report that included\\nthis passage:\\n 49. Mr. Delhorno explains he was born in Mex-\\n ico, but came with his parents to the United\\n States when he was three years old. His family\\n settled in Chicago Heights, Illinois. Mr. Del-\\n horno notes his parents came to the United\\n States illegally, seeking better opportunities for\\n themselves and their children. In 1988, his par-\\n ents were able to take advantage of an amnesty\\n program and were granted legal residency sta-\\n tus. Mr. Delhorno notes at that time he also was\\n granted legal resident status. He acknowledges\\n at the age of 18, he could have applied for citi-\\n zenship, but he has not done so. Mr. Delhorno\\n understood all his friends were born in the\\n United States so he never thought of himself dif-\\n ferently, so he did not pursue citizenship. Mr.\\n Delhorno understands this may present problems for\\n him, but he is trying to make arrangements to remain\\n in the United States.\\n 50. Bureau of Immigrations and Customs En-\\n forcement confirmed Mr. Delhorno was granted\\n legal permanent resident status on 4/29/89. At\\n this time, the defendant is not under investigation\\n\\f4 No. 18-1707\\n\\n for deportation, but upon entry of judgement, the\\n matter will be investigated.\\nPresentence Report ¶¶ 49–50 (emphasis added).\\n Delhorno was sentenced on October 5, 2012. His lawyer\\ntold the judge that Delhorno was seeking a “visa to remain in\\nthe United States because he is a resident alien and never\\nsought citizenship[.]” Delhorno’s Sentencing Guideline range\\nwas 78 to 97 months in prison. He was sentenced to 60 months\\nin prison, followed by a supervised release term of four years.\\nThe court entered the written judgment and commitment or-\\nder that same day. Delhorno never filed a direct appeal or a\\nhabeas corpus petition.\\n On February 26, 2015, while Delhorno was in prison, he\\nfiled a motion to modify his term of imprisonment pursuant\\nto 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on a retroactive change to the\\nSentencing Guidelines. After briefing, this motion was de-\\nnied. On May 26, 2016, Delhorno filed an amended motion to\\nmodify his term of imprisonment pursuant to § 3582, which\\nwas also denied.\\n On approximately May 1, 2017, Delhorno completed his\\nprison sentence and was transferred to the custody of the U.S.\\nImmigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) for removal\\nprocedures. On October 13, 2017, Delhorno filed his petition\\nfor a writ of coram nobis. In the petition and attached affida-\\nvit, Delhorno argued that he received ineffective assistance of\\ncounsel in his criminal case because his lawyer failed to ad-\\nvise him that pleading guilty subjected him to mandatory de-\\nportation. He contended that if he had known this, he would\\nnever have pleaded guilty. Delhorno referenced and included\\nthe transcript from his change of plea hearing which shows\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 5\\n\\nthat the court also failed to address the immigration conse-\\nquences of his guilty plea. In support of his arguments, he\\ncited Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017), Padilla v. Ken-\\ntucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59\\n(1985).\\n The government responded, stating that it believed the\\nrecord needed to be developed further through a hearing be-\\nfore the court ruled on the petition. The district court disa-\\ngreed and denied Delhorno’s petition without a hearing. Del-\\nhorno argues on appeal that this was a mistake. We review\\nthe district court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing for\\nan abuse of discretion. See Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227,\\n235 (6th Cir. 1996), citing Green v. United States, 65 F.3d 546,\\n548 (6th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Fuller, 86 F.3d 105,\\n107 (7th Cir. 1996) (judge “had no duty to conduct an eviden-\\ntiary hearing if, by analogy to summary judgment, he could\\ndetermine on the basis of affidavits, depositions, or other doc-\\numentary materials of evidentiary quality that there was no\\ngenuinely contestable issue of fact”). As we explain below, the\\nrecord here provided a sufficient basis to deny the petition\\nwithout a hearing, so the district court acted within its discre-\\ntion in denying a hearing.\\n Delhorno filed a timely notice of appeal on April 2, 2018.\\nHe also filed a motion in the Eleventh Circuit for a stay of re-\\nmoval. That motion was denied on May 27, 2018, and Del-\\nhorno was deported to Mexico.\\nII. Analysis\\n The writ of coram nobis is a means for a collateral attack\\non a criminal conviction alleging errors of law or fact that af-\\nfect the fundamental character of the conviction, including\\n\\f6 No. 18-1707\\n\\ninadequate counsel. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342\\n(2013). It is similar to a habeas corpus petition and affords the\\nsame type of relief, United States v. Bonansinga, 855 F.2d 476,\\n478 (7th Cir. 1988), but it is available only when a defendant\\nis no longer in custody and thus can no longer take advantage\\nof habeas corpus relief. Stanbridge v. Scott, 791 F.3d 715, 720\\nn.3 (7th Cir. 2015). According to the Supreme Court, the writ\\nof coram nobis is to be used only in “extraordinary cases pre-\\nsenting circumstances compelling its use to achieve justice,”\\nwhere alternative remedies are not available. United States v.\\nDenedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009), citing United States v. Morgan,\\n346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\nWe have explained that a successful coram nobis petition\\nmust satisfy three prongs: “(1) the error alleged is ‘of the most\\nfundamental character’ as to render the criminal conviction\\n‘invalid’; (2) there are ‘sound reasons’ for the defendant’s ‘fail-\\nure to seek earlier relief’; and (3) ‘the defendant continues to\\nsuffer from his conviction even though he is out of custody.’”\\nUnited States v. Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 368 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n In reviewing a district court’s denial of a writ of coram\\nnobis without a hearing, this court conducts a de novo analysis\\nof the legal conclusions and a factual review for clear error. Id.\\nWe consider the three factors in a different order here than set\\nforth above. We conclude that Delhorno continues to suffer\\nfrom his conviction, but he likely cannot demonstrate funda-\\nmental error, and he certainly cannot justify his failure to seek\\nearlier relief. We affirm the denial of his petition for a writ of\\ncoram nobis.\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 7\\n\\n 1. Continued Suffering\\n First, we have no doubt that Delhorno continues to suffer\\nfrom his conviction even though he is out of custody. We have\\nexplained that coram nobis is\\n a postconviction remedy, equivalent to habeas\\n corpus or (for persons convicted in federal\\n court) section 2255, for petitioners who have\\n served their sentences and so cannot invoke ei-\\n ther of those remedies but who as a result of\\n having been convicted are laboring under some\\n serious civil disability that they’d like to elimi-\\n nate by setting aside their conviction—and re-\\n moval from the United States is serious, civil,\\n and a consequence of the petitioner’s convic-\\n tion.\\nClarke v. United States, 703 F.3d 1098, 1101 (7th Cir. 2013); see\\nalso Martignoni v. United States, No. 10 Civ. 6671 JFK, 2011 WL\\n4834217, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2011) (“Deportation is clearly\\na legal consequence of conviction sufficient to warrant coram\\nnobis relief where all other requirements are satisfied[.]”). Del-\\nhorno is no longer in prison and is not on supervised release,\\nso a writ of coram nobis is an appropriate means to challenge\\nthe immigration consequences of his conviction. See Clarke,\\n703 F.3d at 1101–02 (defendant on supervised release is in cus-\\ntody for purposes of habeas corpus and therefore cannot seek\\na writ of coram nobis).\\n Delhorno has been deported from the country where he\\nlived since he was three years old, back to a country where he\\nlikely has minimal ties. His children and fiancée live in the\\nUnited States, and he will not be able to return unless his\\n\\f8 No. 18-1707\\n\\nconviction is vacated. This is a significant additional penalty\\nthat followed his term of imprisonment. These continuing ef-\\nfects satisfy this prong of the coram nobis analysis.\\n 2. Fundamental Error\\n To secure a writ of coram nobis, the error in the defend-\\nant’s criminal conviction must be “of the most fundamental\\ncharacter” so as to render the conviction “invalid.” Wilkozek,\\n822 F.3d at 368. Delhorno attempts to satisfy this prong\\nthrough a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant\\nto Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). To do\\nthis, he must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was ob-\\njectively unreasonable and that the deficient performance\\nprejudiced the defense. Id. While we do not base our decision\\non a failure to meet this prong of the coram nobis analysis\\nwithout a hearing, it is very unlikely Delhorno could demon-\\nstrate that he was prejudiced.\\n In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that crimi-\\nnal defense attorneys must inform non-citizen clients of the\\nrisks of deportation arising from guilty pleas. 559 U.S. 356,\\n366–68 (2010); see also Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342,\\n345–47 (2013) (concluding that Padilla adopted a new rule and\\nwas not retroactive). Delhorno’s guilty plea and sentencing\\noccurred more than a year after Padilla was issued, and we are\\ntroubled that apparently neither his counsel, the prosecutor,\\nnor the court raised the issue of the mandatory immigration\\nconsequences with him.1\\n\\n\\n 1Delhorno’s lawyer alluded to these consequences at the sentencing\\nhearing when he explained that Delhorno was seeking a visa to remain in\\nthe United States. There does not appear to have been any discussion of\\nmandatory deportation as a result of the conviction.\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 9\\n\\n We are not convinced, however, that this apparently defi-\\ncient performance prejudiced Delhorno, as required for relief\\nunder Strickland. Delhorno must show “there is a reasonable\\nprobability that, but for counsel’s errors, [he] would not have\\npled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” United\\nStates v. Reeves, 695 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2012), quoting Bethel\\nv. United States, 458 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Lee\\nv. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1965 (2017). The evidence\\nagainst Delhorno was very strong: he was stopped while driv-\\ning with four kilograms of cocaine hidden in a trap compart-\\nment. Delhorno himself showed the officers how to operate\\nthe trap. Delhorno concedes that success at trial was a “long\\nshot.” Given the likelihood of conviction at trial and a poten-\\ntially longer prison sentence, coupled with the fact that Del-\\nhorno was at least aware of the immigration issues, we find it\\nunlikely that Delhorno would have proceeded to trial if he\\nhad been given proper Padilla warnings.\\n We are unpersuaded by Delhorno’s comparison of his sit-\\nuation to that in Lee v. United States, a case in which the Su-\\npreme Court found that the defendant established a reason-\\nable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty if he\\nhad known of the immigration consequences. 137 S. Ct. 1958,\\n1969 (2017). In Lee, before the defendant pleaded guilty to an\\naggravated felony, he had asked his attorney multiple times\\nwhether he would be deported. Id. at 1967–68. His attorney\\naffirmatively told him that he would not be deported. Id. at\\n1963. Lee also specifically told the sentencing judge that de-\\nportation would affect his decision to plead guilty. Id. at 1968.\\nAfter discovering that he would be deported, Lee immedi-\\nately filed a § 2255 motion. Id. at 1963. Both Lee and his attor-\\nney testified at the subsequent hearing that he would not have\\npleaded guilty if he had known he would be deported. Id.\\n\\f10 No. 18-1707\\n\\n In contrast, Delhorno has produced no contemporaneous\\nevidence showing that he would not have pleaded guilty. His\\nprotests appear to be more in the category of “post hoc asser-\\ntions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but\\nfor his attorney’s deficiencies.” Id. at 1967. These do not weigh\\nin favor of upsetting Delhorno’s guilty plea through a writ of\\ncoram nobis. Id. Despite our skepticism, though, the district\\ncourt denied Delhorno’s request for a hearing to present his\\nargument and evidence. If this prong were dispositive, it\\nmight be necessary to remand for a hearing. Delhorno fails to\\nsatisfy the final prong, however, so we need not reach a firm\\nconclusion on whether a hearing was necessary on the merits.\\n 3. Sound Reasons for Delay\\n We agree with the district court that Delhorno failed to\\ntake any steps regarding his immigration status until he filed\\nthis coram nobis petition, five years after he was sentenced.\\nAs noted, a person seeking a writ of coram nobis must offer\\nsound reasons for his failure to seek relief earlier. Wilkozek,\\n822 F.3d at 368. Delhorno has failed to justify his delay, and\\non this ground we affirm the denial of his petition.\\n Based on his presentence report, which was filed in April\\n2012 in advance of his October 2012 sentencing, Delhorno\\nknew or should have known that his conviction could lead to\\nhis deportation. The report said that Delhorno knew his non-\\ncitizenship could present problems for him and that he was\\n“trying to make arrangements to remain in the United States.”\\nThe report also said that ICE would investigate his case for\\ndeportation following the entry of judgment. With this\\nknowledge, Delhorno went ahead and pleaded guilty. At his\\nsentencing hearing, his lawyer explained to the court that Del-\\nhorno was seeking a visa because he was a resident alien and\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 11\\n\\nhad never sought citizenship. Also, as the district court noted,\\nDelhorno would have likely discovered this immigration is-\\nsue when he was classified as a “deportable alien” by the Fed-\\neral Bureau of Prisons when he was taken into custody.2\\n At the time when he knew or should have known about\\nhis immigration issues, Delhorno had multiple avenues for re-\\nlief. He could have filed a direct appeal. He also could have\\nfiled a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He did\\nneither. The statute of limitations for a habeas corpus petition\\nwould have run from “the date on which the facts supporting\\nthe claim or claims presented could have been discovered\\nthrough the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4)\\n(emphasis added). A reasonably diligent defendant would\\nhave discovered the immigration issues by reviewing the\\npresentence report, paying attention at the sentencing hear-\\ning, and noticing his BOP classification. Delhorno had an en-\\ntire year—until October 2013—to file a habeas petition.\\n Delhorno has offered no justification for failing to seek ear-\\nlier relief through less extraordinary channels. The record\\nshows conclusively that he knew or should have known about\\nhis immigration issues before, during, and after his\\n\\n 2 We assume for purposes of this appeal that no one ever told Del-\\nhorno that he would certainly be deported (i.e., that he was subject to man-\\ndatory deportation). At oral argument in this appeal, Delhorno’s counsel\\nexplained that Delhorno may have pleaded guilty knowing there were im-\\nmigration issues but with the understanding that there could be avenues\\nfor him to continue living in the United States through some sort of visa.\\nWe do not believe the distinction between a warning of mandatory depor-\\ntation as opposed to likely deportation matters for our present purposes.\\nDelhorno was clearly aware that there were immigration consequences to\\nhis guilty plea. He chose to go ahead with his plea and did not raise any\\nchallenges for five years.\\n\\f12 No. 18-1707\\n\\nsentencing. Delhorno’s five-year delay in addressing this is-\\nsue was unreasonable and prevents the federal courts from\\ngranting relief through the extraordinary form of a writ of co-\\nram nobis. The district court’s denial of Delhorno’s petition is\\n AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4366232/\", \"author_raw\": \"David Frank Hamilton\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588979/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben DELHORNO, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1707\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nRUBEN DELHORNO,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\n No. 11-CR-46 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Defendant-appellant Ruben Del-\nhorno filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis, a rare form of\ncollateral attack on a criminal judgment. This ancient com-\nmon-law remedy is available to correct errors of fact and law\nin criminal cases, but only when: “(1) the error alleged is ‘of\nthe most fundamental character’ as to render the criminal con-\nviction ‘invalid’; (2) there are ‘sound reasons’ for the defend-\nant’s ‘failure to seek earlier relief’; and (3) ‘the defendant\n\f2 No. 18-1707\n\ncontinues to suffer from his conviction even though he is out\nof custody.’” United States v. Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 368 (7th\nCir. 2016), citing United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685, 697 (7th\nCir. 2007), and United States v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199, 203 (7th\nCir. 1988). Delhorno fails the second requirement. He cannot\noffer “sound reasons” for failing to seek earlier relief through\na direct appeal or habeas corpus petition. We therefore affirm\nthe district court’s decision denying Delhorno’s writ of coram\nnobis.\nI. Factual and Procedural Background\n Delhorno, age 42, was born in Mexico but came to the\nUnited States with his parents when he was just three years\nold. He was living in the United States as a lawful permanent\nresident. (He could have applied for citizenship but never\ndid.) In 2011, Delhorno was pulled over for speeding. While\nthe officer was writing a speeding ticket, another officer ar-\nrived with his drug-detection canine. The dog sniffed the ve-\nhicle and alerted to the presence of drugs. Another officer at\nthe scene had been instructed in the installation of “trap”\ncompartments in vehicles and noticed that Delhorno’s vehicle\ncontained unusual wiring. The officers discovered four kilo-\ngrams of cocaine in a trap compartment in Delhorno’s vehicle.\n Delhorno was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern Dis-\ntrict of Wisconsin for one count of possessing cocaine with in-\ntent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) &\n841(b)(1)(B). Delhorno pleaded guilty to the indictment on\nJanuary 26, 2012. At the change of plea hearing, Delhorno\nstated that he was born in Mexico and was a permanent resi-\ndent of the United States. However, there was no discussion\nabout the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, even\nthough the hearing took place more than a year after the\n\fNo. 18-1707 3\n\nSupreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010),\nthat a criminal defense lawyer provided ineffective assistance\nof counsel by failing to advise his client that his guilty plea\nwould subject him to automatic deportation.\n Following the change of plea hearing, the United States\nProbation Office prepared a presentence report that included\nthis passage:\n 49. Mr. Delhorno explains he was born in Mex-\n ico, but came with his parents to the United\n States when he was three years old. His family\n settled in Chicago Heights, Illinois. Mr. Del-\n horno notes his parents came to the United\n States illegally, seeking better opportunities for\n themselves and their children. In 1988, his par-\n ents were able to take advantage of an amnesty\n program and were granted legal residency sta-\n tus. Mr. Delhorno notes at that time he also was\n granted legal resident status. He acknowledges\n at the age of 18, he could have applied for citi-\n zenship, but he has not done so. Mr. Delhorno\n understood all his friends were born in the\n United States so he never thought of himself dif-\n ferently, so he did not pursue citizenship. Mr.\n Delhorno understands this may present problems for\n him, but he is trying to make arrangements to remain\n in the United States.\n 50. Bureau of Immigrations and Customs En-\n forcement confirmed Mr. Delhorno was granted\n legal permanent resident status on 4/29/89. At\n this time, the defendant is not under investigation\n\f4 No. 18-1707\n\n for deportation, but upon entry of judgement, the\n matter will be investigated.\nPresentence Report ¶¶ 49–50 (emphasis added).\n Delhorno was sentenced on October 5, 2012. His lawyer\ntold the judge that Delhorno was seeking a “visa to remain in\nthe United States because he is a resident alien and never\nsought citizenship[.]” Delhorno’s Sentencing Guideline range\nwas 78 to 97 months in prison. He was sentenced to 60 months\nin prison, followed by a supervised release term of four years.\nThe court entered the written judgment and commitment or-\nder that same day. Delhorno never filed a direct appeal or a\nhabeas corpus petition.\n On February 26, 2015, while Delhorno was in prison, he\nfiled a motion to modify his term of imprisonment pursuant\nto 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on a retroactive change to the\nSentencing Guidelines. After briefing, this motion was de-\nnied. On May 26, 2016, Delhorno filed an amended motion to\nmodify his term of imprisonment pursuant to § 3582, which\nwas also denied.\n On approximately May 1, 2017, Delhorno completed his\nprison sentence and was transferred to the custody of the U.S.\nImmigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) for removal\nprocedures. On October 13, 2017, Delhorno filed his petition\nfor a writ of coram nobis. In the petition and attached affida-\nvit, Delhorno argued that he received ineffective assistance of\ncounsel in his criminal case because his lawyer failed to ad-\nvise him that pleading guilty subjected him to mandatory de-\nportation. He contended that if he had known this, he would\nnever have pleaded guilty. Delhorno referenced and included\nthe transcript from his change of plea hearing which shows\n\fNo. 18-1707 5\n\nthat the court also failed to address the immigration conse-\nquences of his guilty plea. In support of his arguments, he\ncited Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017), Padilla v. Ken-\ntucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59\n(1985).\n The government responded, stating that it believed the\nrecord needed to be developed further through a hearing be-\nfore the court ruled on the petition. The district court disa-\ngreed and denied Delhorno’s petition without a hearing. Del-\nhorno argues on appeal that this was a mistake. We review\nthe district court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing for\nan abuse of discretion. See Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227,\n235 (6th Cir. 1996), citing Green v. United States, 65 F.3d 546,\n548 (6th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Fuller, 86 F.3d 105,\n107 (7th Cir. 1996) (judge “had no duty to conduct an eviden-\ntiary hearing if, by analogy to summary judgment, he could\ndetermine on the basis of affidavits, depositions, or other doc-\numentary materials of evidentiary quality that there was no\ngenuinely contestable issue of fact”). As we explain below, the\nrecord here provided a sufficient basis to deny the petition\nwithout a hearing, so the district court acted within its discre-\ntion in denying a hearing.\n Delhorno filed a timely notice of appeal on April 2, 2018.\nHe also filed a motion in the Eleventh Circuit for a stay of re-\nmoval. That motion was denied on May 27, 2018, and Del-\nhorno was deported to Mexico.\nII. Analysis\n The writ of coram nobis is a means for a collateral attack\non a criminal conviction alleging errors of law or fact that af-\nfect the fundamental character of the conviction, including\n\f6 No. 18-1707\n\ninadequate counsel. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342\n(2013). It is similar to a habeas corpus petition and affords the\nsame type of relief, United States v. Bonansinga, 855 F.2d 476,\n478 (7th Cir. 1988), but it is available only when a defendant\nis no longer in custody and thus can no longer take advantage\nof habeas corpus relief. Stanbridge v. Scott, 791 F.3d 715, 720\nn.3 (7th Cir. 2015). According to the Supreme Court, the writ\nof coram nobis is to be used only in “extraordinary cases pre-\nsenting circumstances compelling its use to achieve justice,”\nwhere alternative remedies are not available. United States v.\nDenedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009), citing United States v. Morgan,\n346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954) (internal quotation marks omitted).\nWe have explained that a successful coram nobis petition\nmust satisfy three prongs: “(1) the error alleged is ‘of the most\nfundamental character’ as to render the criminal conviction\n‘invalid’; (2) there are ‘sound reasons’ for the defendant’s ‘fail-\nure to seek earlier relief’; and (3) ‘the defendant continues to\nsuffer from his conviction even though he is out of custody.’”\nUnited States v. Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 368 (7th Cir. 2016).\n In reviewing a district court’s denial of a writ of coram\nnobis without a hearing, this court conducts a de novo analysis\nof the legal conclusions and a factual review for clear error. Id.\nWe consider the three factors in a different order here than set\nforth above. We conclude that Delhorno continues to suffer\nfrom his conviction, but he likely cannot demonstrate funda-\nmental error, and he certainly cannot justify his failure to seek\nearlier relief. We affirm the denial of his petition for a writ of\ncoram nobis.\n\fNo. 18-1707 7\n\n 1. Continued Suffering\n First, we have no doubt that Delhorno continues to suffer\nfrom his conviction even though he is out of custody. We have\nexplained that coram nobis is\n a postconviction remedy, equivalent to habeas\n corpus or (for persons convicted in federal\n court) section 2255, for petitioners who have\n served their sentences and so cannot invoke ei-\n ther of those remedies but who as a result of\n having been convicted are laboring under some\n serious civil disability that they’d like to elimi-\n nate by setting aside their conviction—and re-\n moval from the United States is serious, civil,\n and a consequence of the petitioner’s convic-\n tion.\nClarke v. United States, 703 F.3d 1098, 1101 (7th Cir. 2013); see\nalso Martignoni v. United States, No. 10 Civ. 6671 JFK, 2011 WL\n4834217, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2011) (“Deportation is clearly\na legal consequence of conviction sufficient to warrant coram\nnobis relief where all other requirements are satisfied[.]”). Del-\nhorno is no longer in prison and is not on supervised release,\nso a writ of coram nobis is an appropriate means to challenge\nthe immigration consequences of his conviction. See Clarke,\n703 F.3d at 1101–02 (defendant on supervised release is in cus-\ntody for purposes of habeas corpus and therefore cannot seek\na writ of coram nobis).\n Delhorno has been deported from the country where he\nlived since he was three years old, back to a country where he\nlikely has minimal ties. His children and fiancée live in the\nUnited States, and he will not be able to return unless his\n\f8 No. 18-1707\n\nconviction is vacated. This is a significant additional penalty\nthat followed his term of imprisonment. These continuing ef-\nfects satisfy this prong of the coram nobis analysis.\n 2. Fundamental Error\n To secure a writ of coram nobis, the error in the defend-\nant’s criminal conviction must be “of the most fundamental\ncharacter” so as to render the conviction “invalid.” Wilkozek,\n822 F.3d at 368. Delhorno attempts to satisfy this prong\nthrough a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant\nto Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). To do\nthis, he must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was ob-\njectively unreasonable and that the deficient performance\nprejudiced the defense. Id. While we do not base our decision\non a failure to meet this prong of the coram nobis analysis\nwithout a hearing, it is very unlikely Delhorno could demon-\nstrate that he was prejudiced.\n In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that crimi-\nnal defense attorneys must inform non-citizen clients of the\nrisks of deportation arising from guilty pleas. 559 U.S. 356,\n366–68 (2010); see also Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342,\n345–47 (2013) (concluding that Padilla adopted a new rule and\nwas not retroactive). Delhorno’s guilty plea and sentencing\noccurred more than a year after Padilla was issued, and we are\ntroubled that apparently neither his counsel, the prosecutor,\nnor the court raised the issue of the mandatory immigration\nconsequences with him.1\n\n\n 1Delhorno’s lawyer alluded to these consequences at the sentencing\nhearing when he explained that Delhorno was seeking a visa to remain in\nthe United States. There does not appear to have been any discussion of\nmandatory deportation as a result of the conviction.\n\fNo. 18-1707 9\n\n We are not convinced, however, that this apparently defi-\ncient performance prejudiced Delhorno, as required for relief\nunder Strickland. Delhorno must show “there is a reasonable\nprobability that, but for counsel’s errors, [he] would not have\npled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” United\nStates v. Reeves, 695 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2012), quoting Bethel\nv. United States, 458 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Lee\nv. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1965 (2017). The evidence\nagainst Delhorno was very strong: he was stopped while driv-\ning with four kilograms of cocaine hidden in a trap compart-\nment. Delhorno himself showed the officers how to operate\nthe trap. Delhorno concedes that success at trial was a “long\nshot.” Given the likelihood of conviction at trial and a poten-\ntially longer prison sentence, coupled with the fact that Del-\nhorno was at least aware of the immigration issues, we find it\nunlikely that Delhorno would have proceeded to trial if he\nhad been given proper Padilla warnings.\n We are unpersuaded by Delhorno’s comparison of his sit-\nuation to that in Lee v. United States, a case in which the Su-\npreme Court found that the defendant established a reason-\nable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty if he\nhad known of the immigration consequences. 137 S. Ct. 1958,\n1969 (2017). In Lee, before the defendant pleaded guilty to an\naggravated felony, he had asked his attorney multiple times\nwhether he would be deported. Id. at 1967–68. His attorney\naffirmatively told him that he would not be deported. Id. at\n1963. Lee also specifically told the sentencing judge that de-\nportation would affect his decision to plead guilty. Id. at 1968.\nAfter discovering that he would be deported, Lee immedi-\nately filed a § 2255 motion. Id. at 1963. Both Lee and his attor-\nney testified at the subsequent hearing that he would not have\npleaded guilty if he had known he would be deported. Id.\n\f10 No. 18-1707\n\n In contrast, Delhorno has produced no contemporaneous\nevidence showing that he would not have pleaded guilty. His\nprotests appear to be more in the category of “post hoc asser-\ntions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but\nfor his attorney’s deficiencies.” Id. at 1967. These do not weigh\nin favor of upsetting Delhorno’s guilty plea through a writ of\ncoram nobis. Id. Despite our skepticism, though, the district\ncourt denied Delhorno’s request for a hearing to present his\nargument and evidence. If this prong were dispositive, it\nmight be necessary to remand for a hearing. Delhorno fails to\nsatisfy the final prong, however, so we need not reach a firm\nconclusion on whether a hearing was necessary on the merits.\n 3. Sound Reasons for Delay\n We agree with the district court that Delhorno failed to\ntake any steps regarding his immigration status until he filed\nthis coram nobis petition, five years after he was sentenced.\nAs noted, a person seeking a writ of coram nobis must offer\nsound reasons for his failure to seek relief earlier. Wilkozek,\n822 F.3d at 368. Delhorno has failed to justify his delay, and\non this ground we affirm the denial of his petition.\n Based on his presentence report, which was filed in April\n2012 in advance of his October 2012 sentencing, Delhorno\nknew or should have known that his conviction could lead to\nhis deportation. The report said that Delhorno knew his non-\ncitizenship could present problems for him and that he was\n“trying to make arrangements to remain in the United States.”\nThe report also said that ICE would investigate his case for\ndeportation following the entry of judgment. With this\nknowledge, Delhorno went ahead and pleaded guilty. At his\nsentencing hearing, his lawyer explained to the court that Del-\nhorno was seeking a visa because he was a resident alien and\n\fNo. 18-1707 11\n\nhad never sought citizenship. Also, as the district court noted,\nDelhorno would have likely discovered this immigration is-\nsue when he was classified as a “deportable alien” by the Fed-\neral Bureau of Prisons when he was taken into custody.2\n At the time when he knew or should have known about\nhis immigration issues, Delhorno had multiple avenues for re-\nlief. He could have filed a direct appeal. He also could have\nfiled a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He did\nneither. The statute of limitations for a habeas corpus petition\nwould have run from “the date on which the facts supporting\nthe claim or claims presented could have been discovered\nthrough the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4)\n(emphasis added). A reasonably diligent defendant would\nhave discovered the immigration issues by reviewing the\npresentence report, paying attention at the sentencing hear-\ning, and noticing his BOP classification. Delhorno had an en-\ntire year—until October 2013—to file a habeas petition.\n Delhorno has offered no justification for failing to seek ear-\nlier relief through less extraordinary channels. The record\nshows conclusively that he knew or should have known about\nhis immigration issues before, during, and after his\n\n 2 We assume for purposes of this appeal that no one ever told Del-\nhorno that he would certainly be deported (i.e., that he was subject to man-\ndatory deportation). At oral argument in this appeal, Delhorno’s counsel\nexplained that Delhorno may have pleaded guilty knowing there were im-\nmigration issues but with the understanding that there could be avenues\nfor him to continue living in the United States through some sort of visa.\nWe do not believe the distinction between a warning of mandatory depor-\ntation as opposed to likely deportation matters for our present purposes.\nDelhorno was clearly aware that there were immigration consequences to\nhis guilty plea. He chose to go ahead with his plea and did not raise any\nchallenges for five years.\n\f12 No. 18-1707\n\nsentencing. Delhorno’s five-year delay in addressing this is-\nsue was unreasonable and prevents the federal courts from\ngranting relief through the extraordinary form of a writ of co-\nram nobis. The district court’s denial of Delhorno’s petition is\n AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben DELHORNO, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1707\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nRUBEN DELHORNO,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 11-CR-46 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Defendant-appellant Ruben Del-\\nhorno filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis, a rare form of\\ncollateral attack on a criminal judgment. This ancient com-\\nmon-law remedy is available to correct errors of fact and law\\nin criminal cases, but only when: “(1) the error alleged is ‘of\\nthe most fundamental character’ as to render the criminal con-\\nviction ‘invalid’; (2) there are ‘sound reasons’ for the defend-\\nant’s ‘failure to seek earlier relief’; and (3) ‘the defendant\\n\\f2 No. 18-1707\\n\\ncontinues to suffer from his conviction even though he is out\\nof custody.’” United States v. Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 368 (7th\\nCir. 2016), citing United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685, 697 (7th\\nCir. 2007), and United States v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199, 203 (7th\\nCir. 1988). Delhorno fails the second requirement. He cannot\\noffer “sound reasons” for failing to seek earlier relief through\\na direct appeal or habeas corpus petition. We therefore affirm\\nthe district court’s decision denying Delhorno’s writ of coram\\nnobis.\\nI. Factual and Procedural Background\\n Delhorno, age 42, was born in Mexico but came to the\\nUnited States with his parents when he was just three years\\nold. He was living in the United States as a lawful permanent\\nresident. (He could have applied for citizenship but never\\ndid.) In 2011, Delhorno was pulled over for speeding. While\\nthe officer was writing a speeding ticket, another officer ar-\\nrived with his drug-detection canine. The dog sniffed the ve-\\nhicle and alerted to the presence of drugs. Another officer at\\nthe scene had been instructed in the installation of “trap”\\ncompartments in vehicles and noticed that Delhorno’s vehicle\\ncontained unusual wiring. The officers discovered four kilo-\\ngrams of cocaine in a trap compartment in Delhorno’s vehicle.\\n Delhorno was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern Dis-\\ntrict of Wisconsin for one count of possessing cocaine with in-\\ntent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) &\\n841(b)(1)(B). Delhorno pleaded guilty to the indictment on\\nJanuary 26, 2012. At the change of plea hearing, Delhorno\\nstated that he was born in Mexico and was a permanent resi-\\ndent of the United States. However, there was no discussion\\nabout the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, even\\nthough the hearing took place more than a year after the\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 3\\n\\nSupreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010),\\nthat a criminal defense lawyer provided ineffective assistance\\nof counsel by failing to advise his client that his guilty plea\\nwould subject him to automatic deportation.\\n Following the change of plea hearing, the United States\\nProbation Office prepared a presentence report that included\\nthis passage:\\n 49. Mr. Delhorno explains he was born in Mex-\\n ico, but came with his parents to the United\\n States when he was three years old. His family\\n settled in Chicago Heights, Illinois. Mr. Del-\\n horno notes his parents came to the United\\n States illegally, seeking better opportunities for\\n themselves and their children. In 1988, his par-\\n ents were able to take advantage of an amnesty\\n program and were granted legal residency sta-\\n tus. Mr. Delhorno notes at that time he also was\\n granted legal resident status. He acknowledges\\n at the age of 18, he could have applied for citi-\\n zenship, but he has not done so. Mr. Delhorno\\n understood all his friends were born in the\\n United States so he never thought of himself dif-\\n ferently, so he did not pursue citizenship. Mr.\\n Delhorno understands this may present problems for\\n him, but he is trying to make arrangements to remain\\n in the United States.\\n 50. Bureau of Immigrations and Customs En-\\n forcement confirmed Mr. Delhorno was granted\\n legal permanent resident status on 4/29/89. At\\n this time, the defendant is not under investigation\\n\\f4 No. 18-1707\\n\\n for deportation, but upon entry of judgement, the\\n matter will be investigated.\\nPresentence Report ¶¶ 49–50 (emphasis added).\\n Delhorno was sentenced on October 5, 2012. His lawyer\\ntold the judge that Delhorno was seeking a “visa to remain in\\nthe United States because he is a resident alien and never\\nsought citizenship[.]” Delhorno’s Sentencing Guideline range\\nwas 78 to 97 months in prison. He was sentenced to 60 months\\nin prison, followed by a supervised release term of four years.\\nThe court entered the written judgment and commitment or-\\nder that same day. Delhorno never filed a direct appeal or a\\nhabeas corpus petition.\\n On February 26, 2015, while Delhorno was in prison, he\\nfiled a motion to modify his term of imprisonment pursuant\\nto 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on a retroactive change to the\\nSentencing Guidelines. After briefing, this motion was de-\\nnied. On May 26, 2016, Delhorno filed an amended motion to\\nmodify his term of imprisonment pursuant to § 3582, which\\nwas also denied.\\n On approximately May 1, 2017, Delhorno completed his\\nprison sentence and was transferred to the custody of the U.S.\\nImmigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) for removal\\nprocedures. On October 13, 2017, Delhorno filed his petition\\nfor a writ of coram nobis. In the petition and attached affida-\\nvit, Delhorno argued that he received ineffective assistance of\\ncounsel in his criminal case because his lawyer failed to ad-\\nvise him that pleading guilty subjected him to mandatory de-\\nportation. He contended that if he had known this, he would\\nnever have pleaded guilty. Delhorno referenced and included\\nthe transcript from his change of plea hearing which shows\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 5\\n\\nthat the court also failed to address the immigration conse-\\nquences of his guilty plea. In support of his arguments, he\\ncited Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017), Padilla v. Ken-\\ntucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59\\n(1985).\\n The government responded, stating that it believed the\\nrecord needed to be developed further through a hearing be-\\nfore the court ruled on the petition. The district court disa-\\ngreed and denied Delhorno’s petition without a hearing. Del-\\nhorno argues on appeal that this was a mistake. We review\\nthe district court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing for\\nan abuse of discretion. See Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227,\\n235 (6th Cir. 1996), citing Green v. United States, 65 F.3d 546,\\n548 (6th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Fuller, 86 F.3d 105,\\n107 (7th Cir. 1996) (judge “had no duty to conduct an eviden-\\ntiary hearing if, by analogy to summary judgment, he could\\ndetermine on the basis of affidavits, depositions, or other doc-\\numentary materials of evidentiary quality that there was no\\ngenuinely contestable issue of fact”). As we explain below, the\\nrecord here provided a sufficient basis to deny the petition\\nwithout a hearing, so the district court acted within its discre-\\ntion in denying a hearing.\\n Delhorno filed a timely notice of appeal on April 2, 2018.\\nHe also filed a motion in the Eleventh Circuit for a stay of re-\\nmoval. That motion was denied on May 27, 2018, and Del-\\nhorno was deported to Mexico.\\nII. Analysis\\n The writ of coram nobis is a means for a collateral attack\\non a criminal conviction alleging errors of law or fact that af-\\nfect the fundamental character of the conviction, including\\n\\f6 No. 18-1707\\n\\ninadequate counsel. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342\\n(2013). It is similar to a habeas corpus petition and affords the\\nsame type of relief, United States v. Bonansinga, 855 F.2d 476,\\n478 (7th Cir. 1988), but it is available only when a defendant\\nis no longer in custody and thus can no longer take advantage\\nof habeas corpus relief. Stanbridge v. Scott, 791 F.3d 715, 720\\nn.3 (7th Cir. 2015). According to the Supreme Court, the writ\\nof coram nobis is to be used only in “extraordinary cases pre-\\nsenting circumstances compelling its use to achieve justice,”\\nwhere alternative remedies are not available. United States v.\\nDenedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009), citing United States v. Morgan,\\n346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\nWe have explained that a successful coram nobis petition\\nmust satisfy three prongs: “(1) the error alleged is ‘of the most\\nfundamental character’ as to render the criminal conviction\\n‘invalid’; (2) there are ‘sound reasons’ for the defendant’s ‘fail-\\nure to seek earlier relief’; and (3) ‘the defendant continues to\\nsuffer from his conviction even though he is out of custody.’”\\nUnited States v. Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 368 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n In reviewing a district court’s denial of a writ of coram\\nnobis without a hearing, this court conducts a de novo analysis\\nof the legal conclusions and a factual review for clear error. Id.\\nWe consider the three factors in a different order here than set\\nforth above. We conclude that Delhorno continues to suffer\\nfrom his conviction, but he likely cannot demonstrate funda-\\nmental error, and he certainly cannot justify his failure to seek\\nearlier relief. We affirm the denial of his petition for a writ of\\ncoram nobis.\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 7\\n\\n 1. Continued Suffering\\n First, we have no doubt that Delhorno continues to suffer\\nfrom his conviction even though he is out of custody. We have\\nexplained that coram nobis is\\n a postconviction remedy, equivalent to habeas\\n corpus or (for persons convicted in federal\\n court) section 2255, for petitioners who have\\n served their sentences and so cannot invoke ei-\\n ther of those remedies but who as a result of\\n having been convicted are laboring under some\\n serious civil disability that they’d like to elimi-\\n nate by setting aside their conviction—and re-\\n moval from the United States is serious, civil,\\n and a consequence of the petitioner’s convic-\\n tion.\\nClarke v. United States, 703 F.3d 1098, 1101 (7th Cir. 2013); see\\nalso Martignoni v. United States, No. 10 Civ. 6671 JFK, 2011 WL\\n4834217, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2011) (“Deportation is clearly\\na legal consequence of conviction sufficient to warrant coram\\nnobis relief where all other requirements are satisfied[.]”). Del-\\nhorno is no longer in prison and is not on supervised release,\\nso a writ of coram nobis is an appropriate means to challenge\\nthe immigration consequences of his conviction. See Clarke,\\n703 F.3d at 1101–02 (defendant on supervised release is in cus-\\ntody for purposes of habeas corpus and therefore cannot seek\\na writ of coram nobis).\\n Delhorno has been deported from the country where he\\nlived since he was three years old, back to a country where he\\nlikely has minimal ties. His children and fiancée live in the\\nUnited States, and he will not be able to return unless his\\n\\f8 No. 18-1707\\n\\nconviction is vacated. This is a significant additional penalty\\nthat followed his term of imprisonment. These continuing ef-\\nfects satisfy this prong of the coram nobis analysis.\\n 2. Fundamental Error\\n To secure a writ of coram nobis, the error in the defend-\\nant’s criminal conviction must be “of the most fundamental\\ncharacter” so as to render the conviction “invalid.” Wilkozek,\\n822 F.3d at 368. Delhorno attempts to satisfy this prong\\nthrough a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant\\nto Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). To do\\nthis, he must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was ob-\\njectively unreasonable and that the deficient performance\\nprejudiced the defense. Id. While we do not base our decision\\non a failure to meet this prong of the coram nobis analysis\\nwithout a hearing, it is very unlikely Delhorno could demon-\\nstrate that he was prejudiced.\\n In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that crimi-\\nnal defense attorneys must inform non-citizen clients of the\\nrisks of deportation arising from guilty pleas. 559 U.S. 356,\\n366–68 (2010); see also Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342,\\n345–47 (2013) (concluding that Padilla adopted a new rule and\\nwas not retroactive). Delhorno’s guilty plea and sentencing\\noccurred more than a year after Padilla was issued, and we are\\ntroubled that apparently neither his counsel, the prosecutor,\\nnor the court raised the issue of the mandatory immigration\\nconsequences with him.1\\n\\n\\n 1Delhorno’s lawyer alluded to these consequences at the sentencing\\nhearing when he explained that Delhorno was seeking a visa to remain in\\nthe United States. There does not appear to have been any discussion of\\nmandatory deportation as a result of the conviction.\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 9\\n\\n We are not convinced, however, that this apparently defi-\\ncient performance prejudiced Delhorno, as required for relief\\nunder Strickland. Delhorno must show “there is a reasonable\\nprobability that, but for counsel’s errors, [he] would not have\\npled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” United\\nStates v. Reeves, 695 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2012), quoting Bethel\\nv. United States, 458 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Lee\\nv. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1965 (2017). The evidence\\nagainst Delhorno was very strong: he was stopped while driv-\\ning with four kilograms of cocaine hidden in a trap compart-\\nment. Delhorno himself showed the officers how to operate\\nthe trap. Delhorno concedes that success at trial was a “long\\nshot.” Given the likelihood of conviction at trial and a poten-\\ntially longer prison sentence, coupled with the fact that Del-\\nhorno was at least aware of the immigration issues, we find it\\nunlikely that Delhorno would have proceeded to trial if he\\nhad been given proper Padilla warnings.\\n We are unpersuaded by Delhorno’s comparison of his sit-\\nuation to that in Lee v. United States, a case in which the Su-\\npreme Court found that the defendant established a reason-\\nable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty if he\\nhad known of the immigration consequences. 137 S. Ct. 1958,\\n1969 (2017). In Lee, before the defendant pleaded guilty to an\\naggravated felony, he had asked his attorney multiple times\\nwhether he would be deported. Id. at 1967–68. His attorney\\naffirmatively told him that he would not be deported. Id. at\\n1963. Lee also specifically told the sentencing judge that de-\\nportation would affect his decision to plead guilty. Id. at 1968.\\nAfter discovering that he would be deported, Lee immedi-\\nately filed a § 2255 motion. Id. at 1963. Both Lee and his attor-\\nney testified at the subsequent hearing that he would not have\\npleaded guilty if he had known he would be deported. Id.\\n\\f10 No. 18-1707\\n\\n In contrast, Delhorno has produced no contemporaneous\\nevidence showing that he would not have pleaded guilty. His\\nprotests appear to be more in the category of “post hoc asser-\\ntions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but\\nfor his attorney’s deficiencies.” Id. at 1967. These do not weigh\\nin favor of upsetting Delhorno’s guilty plea through a writ of\\ncoram nobis. Id. Despite our skepticism, though, the district\\ncourt denied Delhorno’s request for a hearing to present his\\nargument and evidence. If this prong were dispositive, it\\nmight be necessary to remand for a hearing. Delhorno fails to\\nsatisfy the final prong, however, so we need not reach a firm\\nconclusion on whether a hearing was necessary on the merits.\\n 3. Sound Reasons for Delay\\n We agree with the district court that Delhorno failed to\\ntake any steps regarding his immigration status until he filed\\nthis coram nobis petition, five years after he was sentenced.\\nAs noted, a person seeking a writ of coram nobis must offer\\nsound reasons for his failure to seek relief earlier. Wilkozek,\\n822 F.3d at 368. Delhorno has failed to justify his delay, and\\non this ground we affirm the denial of his petition.\\n Based on his presentence report, which was filed in April\\n2012 in advance of his October 2012 sentencing, Delhorno\\nknew or should have known that his conviction could lead to\\nhis deportation. The report said that Delhorno knew his non-\\ncitizenship could present problems for him and that he was\\n“trying to make arrangements to remain in the United States.”\\nThe report also said that ICE would investigate his case for\\ndeportation following the entry of judgment. With this\\nknowledge, Delhorno went ahead and pleaded guilty. At his\\nsentencing hearing, his lawyer explained to the court that Del-\\nhorno was seeking a visa because he was a resident alien and\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 11\\n\\nhad never sought citizenship. Also, as the district court noted,\\nDelhorno would have likely discovered this immigration is-\\nsue when he was classified as a “deportable alien” by the Fed-\\neral Bureau of Prisons when he was taken into custody.2\\n At the time when he knew or should have known about\\nhis immigration issues, Delhorno had multiple avenues for re-\\nlief. He could have filed a direct appeal. He also could have\\nfiled a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He did\\nneither. The statute of limitations for a habeas corpus petition\\nwould have run from “the date on which the facts supporting\\nthe claim or claims presented could have been discovered\\nthrough the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4)\\n(emphasis added). A reasonably diligent defendant would\\nhave discovered the immigration issues by reviewing the\\npresentence report, paying attention at the sentencing hear-\\ning, and noticing his BOP classification. Delhorno had an en-\\ntire year—until October 2013—to file a habeas petition.\\n Delhorno has offered no justification for failing to seek ear-\\nlier relief through less extraordinary channels. The record\\nshows conclusively that he knew or should have known about\\nhis immigration issues before, during, and after his\\n\\n 2 We assume for purposes of this appeal that no one ever told Del-\\nhorno that he would certainly be deported (i.e., that he was subject to man-\\ndatory deportation). At oral argument in this appeal, Delhorno’s counsel\\nexplained that Delhorno may have pleaded guilty knowing there were im-\\nmigration issues but with the understanding that there could be avenues\\nfor him to continue living in the United States through some sort of visa.\\nWe do not believe the distinction between a warning of mandatory depor-\\ntation as opposed to likely deportation matters for our present purposes.\\nDelhorno was clearly aware that there were immigration consequences to\\nhis guilty plea. He chose to go ahead with his plea and did not raise any\\nchallenges for five years.\\n\\f12 No. 18-1707\\n\\nsentencing. Delhorno’s five-year delay in addressing this is-\\nsue was unreasonable and prevents the federal courts from\\ngranting relief through the extraordinary form of a writ of co-\\nram nobis. The district court’s denial of Delhorno’s petition is\\n AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":680,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4588980,"string":"4,588,980"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hiram Omar GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Hiram Graham"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2156"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2156\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nHIRAM OMAR GRAHAM,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 17-CR-220 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019— DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ST. EVE, Cir-\\ncuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM. Hiram Graham pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act\\nrobbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. At\\nsentencing, he argued that his financial hardships, his extraor-\\ndinary family situation, and his lack of a criminal record\\nshould mitigate his sentence. He now contends that the dis-\\ntrict court failed to address these arguments or adequately ex-\\nplain his 144-month, below-guidelines prison sentence. But\\n\\f2 No. 18-2156\\n\\nthe district court did not commit these procedural errors, so\\nwe affirm the judgment.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Over a five-month period, Graham robbed six Aldi gro-\\ncery stores at gunpoint. He had worked at an Aldi in Milwau-\\nkee for six years, before he was fired four months before the\\nfirst robbery for stealing food. Graham targeted Aldi stores\\nbecause of his insider knowledge, including his knowledge\\nthat Aldi trains employees to acquiesce to robbers. Graham\\nwould enter a store a few minutes before closing, hide until it\\nclosed, then approach employees with his gun drawn and in-\\nstruct them to empty the safe. Two weeks after the sixth rob-\\nbery, Graham was arrested, and he later confessed.\\n Graham pleaded guilty to six counts of Hobbs Act rob-\\nbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and one count of using a firearm\\nduring of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). In\\ncalculating the applicable imprisonment range under the Sen-\\ntencing Guidelines, the district court found that Graham had\\na total offense level of 28 and criminal history category of I,\\ngiving him a range of 78 to 97 months for each robbery, fol-\\nlowed by a mandatory consecutive sentence of 84 months for\\nthe § 924(c) conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) (man-\\ndating that sentence for 924(c) conviction be imposed consec-\\nutively). Consistent with Graham’s plea agreement, the gov-\\nernment recommended a within-guidelines sentence.\\n At sentencing, Graham argued that he should receive the\\n“least restrictive sentence available”—just 84 months’ impris-\\nonment for the § 924(c) conviction and no additional time—\\nbecause his case was unique. For thirty years, Graham had\\nbeen a productive member of society, graduating high school\\n\\fNo. 18-2156 3\\n\\nand working two full-time jobs to support his girlfriend and\\nsix children. Counsel recounted that Graham had lived a\\ncrime-free life until the financial pressures of six children, one\\nwith serious medical issues, overwhelmed him and drove\\nhim to use drugs, steal food, and, finally, rob his former em-\\nployer under the influence of cocaine. Counsel stressed that\\nGraham had learned his lesson, was statistically “unlikely to\\nreoffend,” and that, because of his family support, there was\\nevery reason to believe that he would be rehabilitated.\\n Before hearing the parties’ arguments, the district court\\nstated that it had reviewed Graham’s twelve-page sentencing\\nmemorandum and other submissions. And after hearing all\\nthe arguments, the court commented that it understood that\\nGraham, “like so many,” had been “confronted with financial\\nchallenges,” which “may serve as an explanation for” his con-\\nduct. But, the court continued, this did “not provide a mean-\\ningful excuse for anyone to take matters into their own hands\\nand go about taking from others.” Graham’s criminal con-\\nduct, the court emphasized, had not been “spur of the mo-\\nment,” but “well-planned, executed such that it took law en-\\nforcement” additional time to discover who the perpetrator\\nwas, and that there was “too much in the way of criminal con-\\nduct” to justify the sentence Graham requested.\\n Next, the district court discussed at some length the exor-\\nbitant costs of incarceration and the ballooning prison popu-\\nlation. It explained that “this branch of the court and others\\nare beginning to factor into their analysis of the cost benefit to\\nsociety” this issue in deciding “how much is enough.”\\n The court then determined that, considering “uniformity,\\nproportionality, certainty, and cost,” concurrent sentences of\\n60 months’ imprisonment for each robbery was appropriate,\\n\\f4 No. 18-2156\\n\\nfollowed by the mandatory consecutive sentence of 84\\nmonths for the firearm conviction, for a total sentence of 144\\nmonths. The sentence was justified, the court concluded, by\\nthe “totality of the facts and circumstances” underlying the\\nsix robberies.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review claimed procedural errors de novo. See United\\nStates v. Lockwood, 840 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2016). Graham\\nfirst argues that the district court procedurally erred when it\\nfailed to address his mitigation arguments and adequately ex-\\nplain its consideration of them. At sentencing, a court must\\naddress the parties’ principal arguments, and “where a de-\\nfendant’s principal argument is not so weak as not to merit\\ndiscussion, the court must explain its reason for rejecting that\\nargument.” United States v. Reed, 859 F.3d 468, 472 (7th Cir.\\n2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\n As to the primary factor concerning the sentence imposed,\\nwe turn first to Graham’s claim of financial hardship. Alt-\\nhough the district court did not say much about how this mit-\\nigation argument influenced its sentence, its remarks demon-\\nstrate that it was unpersuaded that Graham’s severe and es-\\ncalating financial troubles outweighed the aggravating cir-\\ncumstances of his six robberies. The court acknowledged Gra-\\nham’s financial challenges but responded that they did not of-\\nfer an excuse for armed robbery. Graham maintains that this\\nstatement alone was insufficient, but a “short explanation” for\\nrejecting a mitigating argument “will suffice where the con-\\ntext and record make clear the reasoning underlying the dis-\\ntrict court’s conclusion.” United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d\\n746, 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.\\n\\fNo. 18-2156 5\\n\\n338, 358–59 (2007)); see United States v. Castaldi, 743 F.3d 589,\\n595 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n Here, directly after mentioning Graham’s financial hard-\\nship, the court noted that the robberies were “not spur of the\\nmoment,” but “well-planned,” and involved conduct too\\negregious—“heinous” and “contrary to every moral pre-\\ncept”—to allow it to sentence him as leniently as his counsel\\nhad advocated.\\n As to the other mitigating factors Graham raised—his lack\\nof a criminal record, strong family ties, and drug use—he is\\ncorrect; the district court did not discuss them. And a court\\nthat fails to mention a ground of recognized legal merit likely\\nerrs. United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir.\\n2005). But the requirement that a court specifically address the\\ndefendant’s principal arguments “applies with less force”\\nwhere it receives written and oral sentencing arguments and\\nimposes a prison sentence “significantly below the applicable\\nguidelines range.” United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835, 837\\n(7th Cir. 2009). And a court’s statement that it has read the\\ndefendant’s submissions is often “enough to satisfy us that [it\\nhas] considered the argument and rejected it.” United States\\nv. Ramirez-Gutierrez, 503 F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir. 2007). That is\\nwhat happened here: the district court stated that it had re-\\nviewed Graham’s submissions and heard oral argument be-\\nfore explaining its below-guidelines sentence. Besides, the ob-\\nligation to address mitigating arguments decreases when a\\ndefendant presents “stock arguments … about his family sit-\\nuation and lack of criminal history,” as Graham did. United\\nStates v. Martinez, 520 F.3d 749, 753 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal\\nquotation marks and alterations omitted). These “are pre-\\ncisely the types of routine contentions that a sentencing court\\n\\f6 No. 18-2156\\n\\nis certainly free to reject without discussion.” Id. (internal quo-\\ntation marks omitted).\\n Graham also faults the district court for failing to address\\nhis extraordinary family circumstances as a father and pro-\\nvider for six children, one with medical issues. He points to\\ncases in which we remanded because the district court did not\\ndiscuss a defendant’s unusual family situation. True enough,\\na defendant’s family circumstances may be a legitimate basis\\nfor a below-guidelines sentence if the district court finds “that\\na defendant’s family ties and responsibilities … are so unu-\\nsual that they may be characterized as extraordinary.”\\nSchroeder, 536 F.3d at 755–56 (alteration in original and cita-\\ntions omitted). But Graham did not argue that his incarcera-\\ntion would leave his children in imminent danger or com-\\npletely without care—he argued that the financial strain on\\nthe family would only increase if he was incarcerated. See id.\\nat 750–51, 756 (defendant was primary caregiver for daughter\\nwhose significant medical problems made daycare unsafe\\nand defendant’s absence would make arranging care impos-\\nsible). Sadly, as we have observed: “Most families suffer emo-\\ntional and financial harm when a parent is imprisoned. Any\\nexperienced district judge has heard about those effects many\\ntimes and must recognize that those effects are consequences\\nof the parent’s crime, not the sentence imposed.” United States\\nv. Gary, 613 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2010). Graham’s contention\\nthat his large family would lose its main breadwinner and\\nthat his children would suffer from their father’s absence, was\\nnot extraordinary enough to warrant specific discussion.\\nSee Martinez, 520 F.3d at 753. Moreover, the focus of Graham’s\\nargument about his family was how the financial pressures of\\nproviding for them led Graham to commit these crimes, and\\nthe court addressed that mitigating argument.\\n\\fNo. 18-2156 7\\n\\n Next, Graham says that the court improperly focused on\\nthe costs of incarceration to the exclusion of his substantial\\nmitigating arguments, and therefore failed to adequately ex-\\nplain the sentence. But even with this incidental policy dis-\\ncussion, the district court did address Graham’s strongest\\nmitigating argument (financial hardship) and explained that\\nit was imposing 60 months for each armed robbery to account\\nfor the egregiousness of Graham’s criminal conduct. That is\\nenough “to allow for meaningful appellate review and to pro-\\nmote the perception of fair sentencing.” Gall v. United States,\\n552 U.S. 38, 590 (2007); see also United States v. Washington,\\n739 F.3d 1080, 1081 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n And the court’s discussion about incarceration costs, alt-\\nhough not explicitly mentioned in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), played\\ninto its “analysis of the cost benefit to society, [and] the benefit\\nto the inmate.” See United States v. DuPriest, 794 F.3d 881, 884\\n(7th Cir. 2015) (noting that same district judge’s commentary\\non prison costs was proper in the context of discussing\\n§ 3553(a) sentencing factors). In any event, the court reduced\\nthe sentence because of its views on the costs of incarceration,\\nso Graham arguably benefited from the court raising a miti-\\ngating argument it found more persuasive.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court reviewed the § 3553(a) factors, ad-\\ndressed Graham’s primary mitigation argument, and stressed\\nthe aggravating fact that Graham had committed six rob-\\nberies. This explanation allows for deferential appellate re-\\nview, and thus we affirm the judgment.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4366233/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"KANNE\": \", Cir cuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Cir cuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588980/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hiram Omar GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2156\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nHIRAM OMAR GRAHAM,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\n No. 17-CR-220 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019— DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ST. EVE, Cir-\ncuit Judges.\n PER CURIAM. Hiram Graham pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act\nrobbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. At\nsentencing, he argued that his financial hardships, his extraor-\ndinary family situation, and his lack of a criminal record\nshould mitigate his sentence. He now contends that the dis-\ntrict court failed to address these arguments or adequately ex-\nplain his 144-month, below-guidelines prison sentence. But\n\f2 No. 18-2156\n\nthe district court did not commit these procedural errors, so\nwe affirm the judgment.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Over a five-month period, Graham robbed six Aldi gro-\ncery stores at gunpoint. He had worked at an Aldi in Milwau-\nkee for six years, before he was fired four months before the\nfirst robbery for stealing food. Graham targeted Aldi stores\nbecause of his insider knowledge, including his knowledge\nthat Aldi trains employees to acquiesce to robbers. Graham\nwould enter a store a few minutes before closing, hide until it\nclosed, then approach employees with his gun drawn and in-\nstruct them to empty the safe. Two weeks after the sixth rob-\nbery, Graham was arrested, and he later confessed.\n Graham pleaded guilty to six counts of Hobbs Act rob-\nbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and one count of using a firearm\nduring of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). In\ncalculating the applicable imprisonment range under the Sen-\ntencing Guidelines, the district court found that Graham had\na total offense level of 28 and criminal history category of I,\ngiving him a range of 78 to 97 months for each robbery, fol-\nlowed by a mandatory consecutive sentence of 84 months for\nthe § 924(c) conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) (man-\ndating that sentence for 924(c) conviction be imposed consec-\nutively). Consistent with Graham’s plea agreement, the gov-\nernment recommended a within-guidelines sentence.\n At sentencing, Graham argued that he should receive the\n“least restrictive sentence available”—just 84 months’ impris-\nonment for the § 924(c) conviction and no additional time—\nbecause his case was unique. For thirty years, Graham had\nbeen a productive member of society, graduating high school\n\fNo. 18-2156 3\n\nand working two full-time jobs to support his girlfriend and\nsix children. Counsel recounted that Graham had lived a\ncrime-free life until the financial pressures of six children, one\nwith serious medical issues, overwhelmed him and drove\nhim to use drugs, steal food, and, finally, rob his former em-\nployer under the influence of cocaine. Counsel stressed that\nGraham had learned his lesson, was statistically “unlikely to\nreoffend,” and that, because of his family support, there was\nevery reason to believe that he would be rehabilitated.\n Before hearing the parties’ arguments, the district court\nstated that it had reviewed Graham’s twelve-page sentencing\nmemorandum and other submissions. And after hearing all\nthe arguments, the court commented that it understood that\nGraham, “like so many,” had been “confronted with financial\nchallenges,” which “may serve as an explanation for” his con-\nduct. But, the court continued, this did “not provide a mean-\ningful excuse for anyone to take matters into their own hands\nand go about taking from others.” Graham’s criminal con-\nduct, the court emphasized, had not been “spur of the mo-\nment,” but “well-planned, executed such that it took law en-\nforcement” additional time to discover who the perpetrator\nwas, and that there was “too much in the way of criminal con-\nduct” to justify the sentence Graham requested.\n Next, the district court discussed at some length the exor-\nbitant costs of incarceration and the ballooning prison popu-\nlation. It explained that “this branch of the court and others\nare beginning to factor into their analysis of the cost benefit to\nsociety” this issue in deciding “how much is enough.”\n The court then determined that, considering “uniformity,\nproportionality, certainty, and cost,” concurrent sentences of\n60 months’ imprisonment for each robbery was appropriate,\n\f4 No. 18-2156\n\nfollowed by the mandatory consecutive sentence of 84\nmonths for the firearm conviction, for a total sentence of 144\nmonths. The sentence was justified, the court concluded, by\nthe “totality of the facts and circumstances” underlying the\nsix robberies.\n II. ANALYSIS\n We review claimed procedural errors de novo. See United\nStates v. Lockwood, 840 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2016). Graham\nfirst argues that the district court procedurally erred when it\nfailed to address his mitigation arguments and adequately ex-\nplain its consideration of them. At sentencing, a court must\naddress the parties’ principal arguments, and “where a de-\nfendant’s principal argument is not so weak as not to merit\ndiscussion, the court must explain its reason for rejecting that\nargument.” United States v. Reed, 859 F.3d 468, 472 (7th Cir.\n2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).\n As to the primary factor concerning the sentence imposed,\nwe turn first to Graham’s claim of financial hardship. Alt-\nhough the district court did not say much about how this mit-\nigation argument influenced its sentence, its remarks demon-\nstrate that it was unpersuaded that Graham’s severe and es-\ncalating financial troubles outweighed the aggravating cir-\ncumstances of his six robberies. The court acknowledged Gra-\nham’s financial challenges but responded that they did not of-\nfer an excuse for armed robbery. Graham maintains that this\nstatement alone was insufficient, but a “short explanation” for\nrejecting a mitigating argument “will suffice where the con-\ntext and record make clear the reasoning underlying the dis-\ntrict court’s conclusion.” United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d\n746, 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.\n\fNo. 18-2156 5\n\n338, 358–59 (2007)); see United States v. Castaldi, 743 F.3d 589,\n595 (7th Cir. 2014).\n Here, directly after mentioning Graham’s financial hard-\nship, the court noted that the robberies were “not spur of the\nmoment,” but “well-planned,” and involved conduct too\negregious—“heinous” and “contrary to every moral pre-\ncept”—to allow it to sentence him as leniently as his counsel\nhad advocated.\n As to the other mitigating factors Graham raised—his lack\nof a criminal record, strong family ties, and drug use—he is\ncorrect; the district court did not discuss them. And a court\nthat fails to mention a ground of recognized legal merit likely\nerrs. United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir.\n2005). But the requirement that a court specifically address the\ndefendant’s principal arguments “applies with less force”\nwhere it receives written and oral sentencing arguments and\nimposes a prison sentence “significantly below the applicable\nguidelines range.” United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835, 837\n(7th Cir. 2009). And a court’s statement that it has read the\ndefendant’s submissions is often “enough to satisfy us that [it\nhas] considered the argument and rejected it.” United States\nv. Ramirez-Gutierrez, 503 F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir. 2007). That is\nwhat happened here: the district court stated that it had re-\nviewed Graham’s submissions and heard oral argument be-\nfore explaining its below-guidelines sentence. Besides, the ob-\nligation to address mitigating arguments decreases when a\ndefendant presents “stock arguments … about his family sit-\nuation and lack of criminal history,” as Graham did. United\nStates v. Martinez, 520 F.3d 749, 753 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal\nquotation marks and alterations omitted). These “are pre-\ncisely the types of routine contentions that a sentencing court\n\f6 No. 18-2156\n\nis certainly free to reject without discussion.” Id. (internal quo-\ntation marks omitted).\n Graham also faults the district court for failing to address\nhis extraordinary family circumstances as a father and pro-\nvider for six children, one with medical issues. He points to\ncases in which we remanded because the district court did not\ndiscuss a defendant’s unusual family situation. True enough,\na defendant’s family circumstances may be a legitimate basis\nfor a below-guidelines sentence if the district court finds “that\na defendant’s family ties and responsibilities … are so unu-\nsual that they may be characterized as extraordinary.”\nSchroeder, 536 F.3d at 755–56 (alteration in original and cita-\ntions omitted). But Graham did not argue that his incarcera-\ntion would leave his children in imminent danger or com-\npletely without care—he argued that the financial strain on\nthe family would only increase if he was incarcerated. See id.\nat 750–51, 756 (defendant was primary caregiver for daughter\nwhose significant medical problems made daycare unsafe\nand defendant’s absence would make arranging care impos-\nsible). Sadly, as we have observed: “Most families suffer emo-\ntional and financial harm when a parent is imprisoned. Any\nexperienced district judge has heard about those effects many\ntimes and must recognize that those effects are consequences\nof the parent’s crime, not the sentence imposed.” United States\nv. Gary, 613 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2010). Graham’s contention\nthat his large family would lose its main breadwinner and\nthat his children would suffer from their father’s absence, was\nnot extraordinary enough to warrant specific discussion.\nSee Martinez, 520 F.3d at 753. Moreover, the focus of Graham’s\nargument about his family was how the financial pressures of\nproviding for them led Graham to commit these crimes, and\nthe court addressed that mitigating argument.\n\fNo. 18-2156 7\n\n Next, Graham says that the court improperly focused on\nthe costs of incarceration to the exclusion of his substantial\nmitigating arguments, and therefore failed to adequately ex-\nplain the sentence. But even with this incidental policy dis-\ncussion, the district court did address Graham’s strongest\nmitigating argument (financial hardship) and explained that\nit was imposing 60 months for each armed robbery to account\nfor the egregiousness of Graham’s criminal conduct. That is\nenough “to allow for meaningful appellate review and to pro-\nmote the perception of fair sentencing.” Gall v. United States,\n552 U.S. 38, 590 (2007); see also United States v. Washington,\n739 F.3d 1080, 1081 (7th Cir. 2014).\n And the court’s discussion about incarceration costs, alt-\nhough not explicitly mentioned in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), played\ninto its “analysis of the cost benefit to society, [and] the benefit\nto the inmate.” See United States v. DuPriest, 794 F.3d 881, 884\n(7th Cir. 2015) (noting that same district judge’s commentary\non prison costs was proper in the context of discussing\n§ 3553(a) sentencing factors). In any event, the court reduced\nthe sentence because of its views on the costs of incarceration,\nso Graham arguably benefited from the court raising a miti-\ngating argument it found more persuasive.\n III. CONCLUSION\n The district court reviewed the § 3553(a) factors, ad-\ndressed Graham’s primary mitigation argument, and stressed\nthe aggravating fact that Graham had committed six rob-\nberies. This explanation allows for deferential appellate re-\nview, and thus we affirm the judgment.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hiram Omar GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2156\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nHIRAM OMAR GRAHAM,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 17-CR-220 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019— DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ST. EVE, Cir-\\ncuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM. Hiram Graham pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act\\nrobbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. At\\nsentencing, he argued that his financial hardships, his extraor-\\ndinary family situation, and his lack of a criminal record\\nshould mitigate his sentence. He now contends that the dis-\\ntrict court failed to address these arguments or adequately ex-\\nplain his 144-month, below-guidelines prison sentence. But\\n\\f2 No. 18-2156\\n\\nthe district court did not commit these procedural errors, so\\nwe affirm the judgment.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Over a five-month period, Graham robbed six Aldi gro-\\ncery stores at gunpoint. He had worked at an Aldi in Milwau-\\nkee for six years, before he was fired four months before the\\nfirst robbery for stealing food. Graham targeted Aldi stores\\nbecause of his insider knowledge, including his knowledge\\nthat Aldi trains employees to acquiesce to robbers. Graham\\nwould enter a store a few minutes before closing, hide until it\\nclosed, then approach employees with his gun drawn and in-\\nstruct them to empty the safe. Two weeks after the sixth rob-\\nbery, Graham was arrested, and he later confessed.\\n Graham pleaded guilty to six counts of Hobbs Act rob-\\nbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and one count of using a firearm\\nduring of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). In\\ncalculating the applicable imprisonment range under the Sen-\\ntencing Guidelines, the district court found that Graham had\\na total offense level of 28 and criminal history category of I,\\ngiving him a range of 78 to 97 months for each robbery, fol-\\nlowed by a mandatory consecutive sentence of 84 months for\\nthe § 924(c) conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) (man-\\ndating that sentence for 924(c) conviction be imposed consec-\\nutively). Consistent with Graham’s plea agreement, the gov-\\nernment recommended a within-guidelines sentence.\\n At sentencing, Graham argued that he should receive the\\n“least restrictive sentence available”—just 84 months’ impris-\\nonment for the § 924(c) conviction and no additional time—\\nbecause his case was unique. For thirty years, Graham had\\nbeen a productive member of society, graduating high school\\n\\fNo. 18-2156 3\\n\\nand working two full-time jobs to support his girlfriend and\\nsix children. Counsel recounted that Graham had lived a\\ncrime-free life until the financial pressures of six children, one\\nwith serious medical issues, overwhelmed him and drove\\nhim to use drugs, steal food, and, finally, rob his former em-\\nployer under the influence of cocaine. Counsel stressed that\\nGraham had learned his lesson, was statistically “unlikely to\\nreoffend,” and that, because of his family support, there was\\nevery reason to believe that he would be rehabilitated.\\n Before hearing the parties’ arguments, the district court\\nstated that it had reviewed Graham’s twelve-page sentencing\\nmemorandum and other submissions. And after hearing all\\nthe arguments, the court commented that it understood that\\nGraham, “like so many,” had been “confronted with financial\\nchallenges,” which “may serve as an explanation for” his con-\\nduct. But, the court continued, this did “not provide a mean-\\ningful excuse for anyone to take matters into their own hands\\nand go about taking from others.” Graham’s criminal con-\\nduct, the court emphasized, had not been “spur of the mo-\\nment,” but “well-planned, executed such that it took law en-\\nforcement” additional time to discover who the perpetrator\\nwas, and that there was “too much in the way of criminal con-\\nduct” to justify the sentence Graham requested.\\n Next, the district court discussed at some length the exor-\\nbitant costs of incarceration and the ballooning prison popu-\\nlation. It explained that “this branch of the court and others\\nare beginning to factor into their analysis of the cost benefit to\\nsociety” this issue in deciding “how much is enough.”\\n The court then determined that, considering “uniformity,\\nproportionality, certainty, and cost,” concurrent sentences of\\n60 months’ imprisonment for each robbery was appropriate,\\n\\f4 No. 18-2156\\n\\nfollowed by the mandatory consecutive sentence of 84\\nmonths for the firearm conviction, for a total sentence of 144\\nmonths. The sentence was justified, the court concluded, by\\nthe “totality of the facts and circumstances” underlying the\\nsix robberies.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review claimed procedural errors de novo. See United\\nStates v. Lockwood, 840 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2016). Graham\\nfirst argues that the district court procedurally erred when it\\nfailed to address his mitigation arguments and adequately ex-\\nplain its consideration of them. At sentencing, a court must\\naddress the parties’ principal arguments, and “where a de-\\nfendant’s principal argument is not so weak as not to merit\\ndiscussion, the court must explain its reason for rejecting that\\nargument.” United States v. Reed, 859 F.3d 468, 472 (7th Cir.\\n2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\n As to the primary factor concerning the sentence imposed,\\nwe turn first to Graham’s claim of financial hardship. Alt-\\nhough the district court did not say much about how this mit-\\nigation argument influenced its sentence, its remarks demon-\\nstrate that it was unpersuaded that Graham’s severe and es-\\ncalating financial troubles outweighed the aggravating cir-\\ncumstances of his six robberies. The court acknowledged Gra-\\nham’s financial challenges but responded that they did not of-\\nfer an excuse for armed robbery. Graham maintains that this\\nstatement alone was insufficient, but a “short explanation” for\\nrejecting a mitigating argument “will suffice where the con-\\ntext and record make clear the reasoning underlying the dis-\\ntrict court’s conclusion.” United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d\\n746, 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.\\n\\fNo. 18-2156 5\\n\\n338, 358–59 (2007)); see United States v. Castaldi, 743 F.3d 589,\\n595 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n Here, directly after mentioning Graham’s financial hard-\\nship, the court noted that the robberies were “not spur of the\\nmoment,” but “well-planned,” and involved conduct too\\negregious—“heinous” and “contrary to every moral pre-\\ncept”—to allow it to sentence him as leniently as his counsel\\nhad advocated.\\n As to the other mitigating factors Graham raised—his lack\\nof a criminal record, strong family ties, and drug use—he is\\ncorrect; the district court did not discuss them. And a court\\nthat fails to mention a ground of recognized legal merit likely\\nerrs. United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir.\\n2005). But the requirement that a court specifically address the\\ndefendant’s principal arguments “applies with less force”\\nwhere it receives written and oral sentencing arguments and\\nimposes a prison sentence “significantly below the applicable\\nguidelines range.” United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835, 837\\n(7th Cir. 2009). And a court’s statement that it has read the\\ndefendant’s submissions is often “enough to satisfy us that [it\\nhas] considered the argument and rejected it.” United States\\nv. Ramirez-Gutierrez, 503 F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir. 2007). That is\\nwhat happened here: the district court stated that it had re-\\nviewed Graham’s submissions and heard oral argument be-\\nfore explaining its below-guidelines sentence. Besides, the ob-\\nligation to address mitigating arguments decreases when a\\ndefendant presents “stock arguments … about his family sit-\\nuation and lack of criminal history,” as Graham did. United\\nStates v. Martinez, 520 F.3d 749, 753 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal\\nquotation marks and alterations omitted). These “are pre-\\ncisely the types of routine contentions that a sentencing court\\n\\f6 No. 18-2156\\n\\nis certainly free to reject without discussion.” Id. (internal quo-\\ntation marks omitted).\\n Graham also faults the district court for failing to address\\nhis extraordinary family circumstances as a father and pro-\\nvider for six children, one with medical issues. He points to\\ncases in which we remanded because the district court did not\\ndiscuss a defendant’s unusual family situation. True enough,\\na defendant’s family circumstances may be a legitimate basis\\nfor a below-guidelines sentence if the district court finds “that\\na defendant’s family ties and responsibilities … are so unu-\\nsual that they may be characterized as extraordinary.”\\nSchroeder, 536 F.3d at 755–56 (alteration in original and cita-\\ntions omitted). But Graham did not argue that his incarcera-\\ntion would leave his children in imminent danger or com-\\npletely without care—he argued that the financial strain on\\nthe family would only increase if he was incarcerated. See id.\\nat 750–51, 756 (defendant was primary caregiver for daughter\\nwhose significant medical problems made daycare unsafe\\nand defendant’s absence would make arranging care impos-\\nsible). Sadly, as we have observed: “Most families suffer emo-\\ntional and financial harm when a parent is imprisoned. Any\\nexperienced district judge has heard about those effects many\\ntimes and must recognize that those effects are consequences\\nof the parent’s crime, not the sentence imposed.” United States\\nv. Gary, 613 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2010). Graham’s contention\\nthat his large family would lose its main breadwinner and\\nthat his children would suffer from their father’s absence, was\\nnot extraordinary enough to warrant specific discussion.\\nSee Martinez, 520 F.3d at 753. Moreover, the focus of Graham’s\\nargument about his family was how the financial pressures of\\nproviding for them led Graham to commit these crimes, and\\nthe court addressed that mitigating argument.\\n\\fNo. 18-2156 7\\n\\n Next, Graham says that the court improperly focused on\\nthe costs of incarceration to the exclusion of his substantial\\nmitigating arguments, and therefore failed to adequately ex-\\nplain the sentence. But even with this incidental policy dis-\\ncussion, the district court did address Graham’s strongest\\nmitigating argument (financial hardship) and explained that\\nit was imposing 60 months for each armed robbery to account\\nfor the egregiousness of Graham’s criminal conduct. That is\\nenough “to allow for meaningful appellate review and to pro-\\nmote the perception of fair sentencing.” Gall v. United States,\\n552 U.S. 38, 590 (2007); see also United States v. Washington,\\n739 F.3d 1080, 1081 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n And the court’s discussion about incarceration costs, alt-\\nhough not explicitly mentioned in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), played\\ninto its “analysis of the cost benefit to society, [and] the benefit\\nto the inmate.” See United States v. DuPriest, 794 F.3d 881, 884\\n(7th Cir. 2015) (noting that same district judge’s commentary\\non prison costs was proper in the context of discussing\\n§ 3553(a) sentencing factors). In any event, the court reduced\\nthe sentence because of its views on the costs of incarceration,\\nso Graham arguably benefited from the court raising a miti-\\ngating argument it found more persuasive.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court reviewed the § 3553(a) factors, ad-\\ndressed Graham’s primary mitigation argument, and stressed\\nthe aggravating fact that Graham had committed six rob-\\nberies. This explanation allows for deferential appellate re-\\nview, and thus we affirm the judgment.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":681,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589047,"string":"4,589,047"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Ruben Delhorno"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1707"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"David Frank Hamilton\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1707\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nRUBEN DELHORNO,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 11-CR-46 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Defendant-appellant Ruben Del-\\nhorno filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis, a rare form of\\ncollateral attack on a criminal judgment. This ancient com-\\nmon-law remedy is available to correct errors of fact and law\\nin criminal cases, but only when: “(1) the error alleged is ‘of\\nthe most fundamental character’ as to render the criminal con-\\nviction ‘invalid’; (2) there are ‘sound reasons’ for the defend-\\nant’s ‘failure to seek earlier relief’; and (3) ‘the defendant\\n\\f2 No. 18-1707\\n\\ncontinues to suffer from his conviction even though he is out\\nof custody.’” United States v. Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 368 (7th\\nCir. 2016), citing United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685, 697 (7th\\nCir. 2007), and United States v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199, 203 (7th\\nCir. 1988). Delhorno fails the second requirement. He cannot\\noffer “sound reasons” for failing to seek earlier relief through\\na direct appeal or habeas corpus petition. We therefore affirm\\nthe district court’s decision denying Delhorno’s writ of coram\\nnobis.\\nI. Factual and Procedural Background\\n Delhorno, age 42, was born in Mexico but came to the\\nUnited States with his parents when he was just three years\\nold. He was living in the United States as a lawful permanent\\nresident. (He could have applied for citizenship but never\\ndid.) In 2011, Delhorno was pulled over for speeding. While\\nthe officer was writing a speeding ticket, another officer ar-\\nrived with his drug-detection canine. The dog sniffed the ve-\\nhicle and alerted to the presence of drugs. Another officer at\\nthe scene had been instructed in the installation of “trap”\\ncompartments in vehicles and noticed that Delhorno’s vehicle\\ncontained unusual wiring. The officers discovered four kilo-\\ngrams of cocaine in a trap compartment in Delhorno’s vehicle.\\n Delhorno was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern Dis-\\ntrict of Wisconsin for one count of possessing cocaine with in-\\ntent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) &\\n841(b)(1)(B). Delhorno pleaded guilty to the indictment on\\nJanuary 26, 2012. At the change of plea hearing, Delhorno\\nstated that he was born in Mexico and was a permanent resi-\\ndent of the United States. However, there was no discussion\\nabout the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, even\\nthough the hearing took place more than a year after the\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 3\\n\\nSupreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010),\\nthat a criminal defense lawyer provided ineffective assistance\\nof counsel by failing to advise his client that his guilty plea\\nwould subject him to automatic deportation.\\n Following the change of plea hearing, the United States\\nProbation Office prepared a presentence report that included\\nthis passage:\\n 49. Mr. Delhorno explains he was born in Mex-\\n ico, but came with his parents to the United\\n States when he was three years old. His family\\n settled in Chicago Heights, Illinois. Mr. Del-\\n horno notes his parents came to the United\\n States illegally, seeking better opportunities for\\n themselves and their children. In 1988, his par-\\n ents were able to take advantage of an amnesty\\n program and were granted legal residency sta-\\n tus. Mr. Delhorno notes at that time he also was\\n granted legal resident status. He acknowledges\\n at the age of 18, he could have applied for citi-\\n zenship, but he has not done so. Mr. Delhorno\\n understood all his friends were born in the\\n United States so he never thought of himself dif-\\n ferently, so he did not pursue citizenship. Mr.\\n Delhorno understands this may present problems for\\n him, but he is trying to make arrangements to remain\\n in the United States.\\n 50. Bureau of Immigrations and Customs En-\\n forcement confirmed Mr. Delhorno was granted\\n legal permanent resident status on 4/29/89. At\\n this time, the defendant is not under investigation\\n\\f4 No. 18-1707\\n\\n for deportation, but upon entry of judgement, the\\n matter will be investigated.\\nPresentence Report ¶¶ 49–50 (emphasis added).\\n Delhorno was sentenced on October 5, 2012. His lawyer\\ntold the judge that Delhorno was seeking a “visa to remain in\\nthe United States because he is a resident alien and never\\nsought citizenship[.]” Delhorno’s Sentencing Guideline range\\nwas 78 to 97 months in prison. He was sentenced to 60 months\\nin prison, followed by a supervised release term of four years.\\nThe court entered the written judgment and commitment or-\\nder that same day. Delhorno never filed a direct appeal or a\\nhabeas corpus petition.\\n On February 26, 2015, while Delhorno was in prison, he\\nfiled a motion to modify his term of imprisonment pursuant\\nto 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on a retroactive change to the\\nSentencing Guidelines. After briefing, this motion was de-\\nnied. On May 26, 2016, Delhorno filed an amended motion to\\nmodify his term of imprisonment pursuant to § 3582, which\\nwas also denied.\\n On approximately May 1, 2017, Delhorno completed his\\nprison sentence and was transferred to the custody of the U.S.\\nImmigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) for removal\\nprocedures. On October 13, 2017, Delhorno filed his petition\\nfor a writ of coram nobis. In the petition and attached affida-\\nvit, Delhorno argued that he received ineffective assistance of\\ncounsel in his criminal case because his lawyer failed to ad-\\nvise him that pleading guilty subjected him to mandatory de-\\nportation. He contended that if he had known this, he would\\nnever have pleaded guilty. Delhorno referenced and included\\nthe transcript from his change of plea hearing which shows\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 5\\n\\nthat the court also failed to address the immigration conse-\\nquences of his guilty plea. In support of his arguments, he\\ncited Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017), Padilla v. Ken-\\ntucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59\\n(1985).\\n The government responded, stating that it believed the\\nrecord needed to be developed further through a hearing be-\\nfore the court ruled on the petition. The district court disa-\\ngreed and denied Delhorno’s petition without a hearing. Del-\\nhorno argues on appeal that this was a mistake. We review\\nthe district court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing for\\nan abuse of discretion. See Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227,\\n235 (6th Cir. 1996), citing Green v. United States, 65 F.3d 546,\\n548 (6th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Fuller, 86 F.3d 105,\\n107 (7th Cir. 1996) (judge “had no duty to conduct an eviden-\\ntiary hearing if, by analogy to summary judgment, he could\\ndetermine on the basis of affidavits, depositions, or other doc-\\numentary materials of evidentiary quality that there was no\\ngenuinely contestable issue of fact”). As we explain below, the\\nrecord here provided a sufficient basis to deny the petition\\nwithout a hearing, so the district court acted within its discre-\\ntion in denying a hearing.\\n Delhorno filed a timely notice of appeal on April 2, 2018.\\nHe also filed a motion in the Eleventh Circuit for a stay of re-\\nmoval. That motion was denied on May 27, 2018, and Del-\\nhorno was deported to Mexico.\\nII. Analysis\\n The writ of coram nobis is a means for a collateral attack\\non a criminal conviction alleging errors of law or fact that af-\\nfect the fundamental character of the conviction, including\\n\\f6 No. 18-1707\\n\\ninadequate counsel. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342\\n(2013). It is similar to a habeas corpus petition and affords the\\nsame type of relief, United States v. Bonansinga, 855 F.2d 476,\\n478 (7th Cir. 1988), but it is available only when a defendant\\nis no longer in custody and thus can no longer take advantage\\nof habeas corpus relief. Stanbridge v. Scott, 791 F.3d 715, 720\\nn.3 (7th Cir. 2015). According to the Supreme Court, the writ\\nof coram nobis is to be used only in “extraordinary cases pre-\\nsenting circumstances compelling its use to achieve justice,”\\nwhere alternative remedies are not available. United States v.\\nDenedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009), citing United States v. Morgan,\\n346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\nWe have explained that a successful coram nobis petition\\nmust satisfy three prongs: “(1) the error alleged is ‘of the most\\nfundamental character’ as to render the criminal conviction\\n‘invalid’; (2) there are ‘sound reasons’ for the defendant’s ‘fail-\\nure to seek earlier relief’; and (3) ‘the defendant continues to\\nsuffer from his conviction even though he is out of custody.’”\\nUnited States v. Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 368 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n In reviewing a district court’s denial of a writ of coram\\nnobis without a hearing, this court conducts a de novo analysis\\nof the legal conclusions and a factual review for clear error. Id.\\nWe consider the three factors in a different order here than set\\nforth above. We conclude that Delhorno continues to suffer\\nfrom his conviction, but he likely cannot demonstrate funda-\\nmental error, and he certainly cannot justify his failure to seek\\nearlier relief. We affirm the denial of his petition for a writ of\\ncoram nobis.\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 7\\n\\n 1. Continued Suffering\\n First, we have no doubt that Delhorno continues to suffer\\nfrom his conviction even though he is out of custody. We have\\nexplained that coram nobis is\\n a postconviction remedy, equivalent to habeas\\n corpus or (for persons convicted in federal\\n court) section 2255, for petitioners who have\\n served their sentences and so cannot invoke ei-\\n ther of those remedies but who as a result of\\n having been convicted are laboring under some\\n serious civil disability that they’d like to elimi-\\n nate by setting aside their conviction—and re-\\n moval from the United States is serious, civil,\\n and a consequence of the petitioner’s convic-\\n tion.\\nClarke v. United States, 703 F.3d 1098, 1101 (7th Cir. 2013); see\\nalso Martignoni v. United States, No. 10 Civ. 6671 JFK, 2011 WL\\n4834217, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2011) (“Deportation is clearly\\na legal consequence of conviction sufficient to warrant coram\\nnobis relief where all other requirements are satisfied[.]”). Del-\\nhorno is no longer in prison and is not on supervised release,\\nso a writ of coram nobis is an appropriate means to challenge\\nthe immigration consequences of his conviction. See Clarke,\\n703 F.3d at 1101–02 (defendant on supervised release is in cus-\\ntody for purposes of habeas corpus and therefore cannot seek\\na writ of coram nobis).\\n Delhorno has been deported from the country where he\\nlived since he was three years old, back to a country where he\\nlikely has minimal ties. His children and fiancée live in the\\nUnited States, and he will not be able to return unless his\\n\\f8 No. 18-1707\\n\\nconviction is vacated. This is a significant additional penalty\\nthat followed his term of imprisonment. These continuing ef-\\nfects satisfy this prong of the coram nobis analysis.\\n 2. Fundamental Error\\n To secure a writ of coram nobis, the error in the defend-\\nant’s criminal conviction must be “of the most fundamental\\ncharacter” so as to render the conviction “invalid.” Wilkozek,\\n822 F.3d at 368. Delhorno attempts to satisfy this prong\\nthrough a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant\\nto Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). To do\\nthis, he must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was ob-\\njectively unreasonable and that the deficient performance\\nprejudiced the defense. Id. While we do not base our decision\\non a failure to meet this prong of the coram nobis analysis\\nwithout a hearing, it is very unlikely Delhorno could demon-\\nstrate that he was prejudiced.\\n In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that crimi-\\nnal defense attorneys must inform non-citizen clients of the\\nrisks of deportation arising from guilty pleas. 559 U.S. 356,\\n366–68 (2010); see also Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342,\\n345–47 (2013) (concluding that Padilla adopted a new rule and\\nwas not retroactive). Delhorno’s guilty plea and sentencing\\noccurred more than a year after Padilla was issued, and we are\\ntroubled that apparently neither his counsel, the prosecutor,\\nnor the court raised the issue of the mandatory immigration\\nconsequences with him.1\\n\\n\\n 1Delhorno’s lawyer alluded to these consequences at the sentencing\\nhearing when he explained that Delhorno was seeking a visa to remain in\\nthe United States. There does not appear to have been any discussion of\\nmandatory deportation as a result of the conviction.\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 9\\n\\n We are not convinced, however, that this apparently defi-\\ncient performance prejudiced Delhorno, as required for relief\\nunder Strickland. Delhorno must show “there is a reasonable\\nprobability that, but for counsel’s errors, [he] would not have\\npled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” United\\nStates v. Reeves, 695 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2012), quoting Bethel\\nv. United States, 458 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Lee\\nv. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1965 (2017). The evidence\\nagainst Delhorno was very strong: he was stopped while driv-\\ning with four kilograms of cocaine hidden in a trap compart-\\nment. Delhorno himself showed the officers how to operate\\nthe trap. Delhorno concedes that success at trial was a “long\\nshot.” Given the likelihood of conviction at trial and a poten-\\ntially longer prison sentence, coupled with the fact that Del-\\nhorno was at least aware of the immigration issues, we find it\\nunlikely that Delhorno would have proceeded to trial if he\\nhad been given proper Padilla warnings.\\n We are unpersuaded by Delhorno’s comparison of his sit-\\nuation to that in Lee v. United States, a case in which the Su-\\npreme Court found that the defendant established a reason-\\nable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty if he\\nhad known of the immigration consequences. 137 S. Ct. 1958,\\n1969 (2017). In Lee, before the defendant pleaded guilty to an\\naggravated felony, he had asked his attorney multiple times\\nwhether he would be deported. Id. at 1967–68. His attorney\\naffirmatively told him that he would not be deported. Id. at\\n1963. Lee also specifically told the sentencing judge that de-\\nportation would affect his decision to plead guilty. Id. at 1968.\\nAfter discovering that he would be deported, Lee immedi-\\nately filed a § 2255 motion. Id. at 1963. Both Lee and his attor-\\nney testified at the subsequent hearing that he would not have\\npleaded guilty if he had known he would be deported. Id.\\n\\f10 No. 18-1707\\n\\n In contrast, Delhorno has produced no contemporaneous\\nevidence showing that he would not have pleaded guilty. His\\nprotests appear to be more in the category of “post hoc asser-\\ntions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but\\nfor his attorney’s deficiencies.” Id. at 1967. These do not weigh\\nin favor of upsetting Delhorno’s guilty plea through a writ of\\ncoram nobis. Id. Despite our skepticism, though, the district\\ncourt denied Delhorno’s request for a hearing to present his\\nargument and evidence. If this prong were dispositive, it\\nmight be necessary to remand for a hearing. Delhorno fails to\\nsatisfy the final prong, however, so we need not reach a firm\\nconclusion on whether a hearing was necessary on the merits.\\n 3. Sound Reasons for Delay\\n We agree with the district court that Delhorno failed to\\ntake any steps regarding his immigration status until he filed\\nthis coram nobis petition, five years after he was sentenced.\\nAs noted, a person seeking a writ of coram nobis must offer\\nsound reasons for his failure to seek relief earlier. Wilkozek,\\n822 F.3d at 368. Delhorno has failed to justify his delay, and\\non this ground we affirm the denial of his petition.\\n Based on his presentence report, which was filed in April\\n2012 in advance of his October 2012 sentencing, Delhorno\\nknew or should have known that his conviction could lead to\\nhis deportation. The report said that Delhorno knew his non-\\ncitizenship could present problems for him and that he was\\n“trying to make arrangements to remain in the United States.”\\nThe report also said that ICE would investigate his case for\\ndeportation following the entry of judgment. With this\\nknowledge, Delhorno went ahead and pleaded guilty. At his\\nsentencing hearing, his lawyer explained to the court that Del-\\nhorno was seeking a visa because he was a resident alien and\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 11\\n\\nhad never sought citizenship. Also, as the district court noted,\\nDelhorno would have likely discovered this immigration is-\\nsue when he was classified as a “deportable alien” by the Fed-\\neral Bureau of Prisons when he was taken into custody.2\\n At the time when he knew or should have known about\\nhis immigration issues, Delhorno had multiple avenues for re-\\nlief. He could have filed a direct appeal. He also could have\\nfiled a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He did\\nneither. The statute of limitations for a habeas corpus petition\\nwould have run from “the date on which the facts supporting\\nthe claim or claims presented could have been discovered\\nthrough the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4)\\n(emphasis added). A reasonably diligent defendant would\\nhave discovered the immigration issues by reviewing the\\npresentence report, paying attention at the sentencing hear-\\ning, and noticing his BOP classification. Delhorno had an en-\\ntire year—until October 2013—to file a habeas petition.\\n Delhorno has offered no justification for failing to seek ear-\\nlier relief through less extraordinary channels. The record\\nshows conclusively that he knew or should have known about\\nhis immigration issues before, during, and after his\\n\\n 2 We assume for purposes of this appeal that no one ever told Del-\\nhorno that he would certainly be deported (i.e., that he was subject to man-\\ndatory deportation). At oral argument in this appeal, Delhorno’s counsel\\nexplained that Delhorno may have pleaded guilty knowing there were im-\\nmigration issues but with the understanding that there could be avenues\\nfor him to continue living in the United States through some sort of visa.\\nWe do not believe the distinction between a warning of mandatory depor-\\ntation as opposed to likely deportation matters for our present purposes.\\nDelhorno was clearly aware that there were immigration consequences to\\nhis guilty plea. He chose to go ahead with his plea and did not raise any\\nchallenges for five years.\\n\\f12 No. 18-1707\\n\\nsentencing. Delhorno’s five-year delay in addressing this is-\\nsue was unreasonable and prevents the federal courts from\\ngranting relief through the extraordinary form of a writ of co-\\nram nobis. The district court’s denial of Delhorno’s petition is\\n AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4366300/\", \"author_raw\": \"David Frank Hamilton\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589047/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Ruben Delhorno\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1707\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nRUBEN DELHORNO,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\n No. 11-CR-46 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Defendant-appellant Ruben Del-\nhorno filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis, a rare form of\ncollateral attack on a criminal judgment. This ancient com-\nmon-law remedy is available to correct errors of fact and law\nin criminal cases, but only when: “(1) the error alleged is ‘of\nthe most fundamental character’ as to render the criminal con-\nviction ‘invalid’; (2) there are ‘sound reasons’ for the defend-\nant’s ‘failure to seek earlier relief’; and (3) ‘the defendant\n\f2 No. 18-1707\n\ncontinues to suffer from his conviction even though he is out\nof custody.’” United States v. Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 368 (7th\nCir. 2016), citing United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685, 697 (7th\nCir. 2007), and United States v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199, 203 (7th\nCir. 1988). Delhorno fails the second requirement. He cannot\noffer “sound reasons” for failing to seek earlier relief through\na direct appeal or habeas corpus petition. We therefore affirm\nthe district court’s decision denying Delhorno’s writ of coram\nnobis.\nI. Factual and Procedural Background\n Delhorno, age 42, was born in Mexico but came to the\nUnited States with his parents when he was just three years\nold. He was living in the United States as a lawful permanent\nresident. (He could have applied for citizenship but never\ndid.) In 2011, Delhorno was pulled over for speeding. While\nthe officer was writing a speeding ticket, another officer ar-\nrived with his drug-detection canine. The dog sniffed the ve-\nhicle and alerted to the presence of drugs. Another officer at\nthe scene had been instructed in the installation of “trap”\ncompartments in vehicles and noticed that Delhorno’s vehicle\ncontained unusual wiring. The officers discovered four kilo-\ngrams of cocaine in a trap compartment in Delhorno’s vehicle.\n Delhorno was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern Dis-\ntrict of Wisconsin for one count of possessing cocaine with in-\ntent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) &\n841(b)(1)(B). Delhorno pleaded guilty to the indictment on\nJanuary 26, 2012. At the change of plea hearing, Delhorno\nstated that he was born in Mexico and was a permanent resi-\ndent of the United States. However, there was no discussion\nabout the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, even\nthough the hearing took place more than a year after the\n\fNo. 18-1707 3\n\nSupreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010),\nthat a criminal defense lawyer provided ineffective assistance\nof counsel by failing to advise his client that his guilty plea\nwould subject him to automatic deportation.\n Following the change of plea hearing, the United States\nProbation Office prepared a presentence report that included\nthis passage:\n 49. Mr. Delhorno explains he was born in Mex-\n ico, but came with his parents to the United\n States when he was three years old. His family\n settled in Chicago Heights, Illinois. Mr. Del-\n horno notes his parents came to the United\n States illegally, seeking better opportunities for\n themselves and their children. In 1988, his par-\n ents were able to take advantage of an amnesty\n program and were granted legal residency sta-\n tus. Mr. Delhorno notes at that time he also was\n granted legal resident status. He acknowledges\n at the age of 18, he could have applied for citi-\n zenship, but he has not done so. Mr. Delhorno\n understood all his friends were born in the\n United States so he never thought of himself dif-\n ferently, so he did not pursue citizenship. Mr.\n Delhorno understands this may present problems for\n him, but he is trying to make arrangements to remain\n in the United States.\n 50. Bureau of Immigrations and Customs En-\n forcement confirmed Mr. Delhorno was granted\n legal permanent resident status on 4/29/89. At\n this time, the defendant is not under investigation\n\f4 No. 18-1707\n\n for deportation, but upon entry of judgement, the\n matter will be investigated.\nPresentence Report ¶¶ 49–50 (emphasis added).\n Delhorno was sentenced on October 5, 2012. His lawyer\ntold the judge that Delhorno was seeking a “visa to remain in\nthe United States because he is a resident alien and never\nsought citizenship[.]” Delhorno’s Sentencing Guideline range\nwas 78 to 97 months in prison. He was sentenced to 60 months\nin prison, followed by a supervised release term of four years.\nThe court entered the written judgment and commitment or-\nder that same day. Delhorno never filed a direct appeal or a\nhabeas corpus petition.\n On February 26, 2015, while Delhorno was in prison, he\nfiled a motion to modify his term of imprisonment pursuant\nto 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on a retroactive change to the\nSentencing Guidelines. After briefing, this motion was de-\nnied. On May 26, 2016, Delhorno filed an amended motion to\nmodify his term of imprisonment pursuant to § 3582, which\nwas also denied.\n On approximately May 1, 2017, Delhorno completed his\nprison sentence and was transferred to the custody of the U.S.\nImmigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) for removal\nprocedures. On October 13, 2017, Delhorno filed his petition\nfor a writ of coram nobis. In the petition and attached affida-\nvit, Delhorno argued that he received ineffective assistance of\ncounsel in his criminal case because his lawyer failed to ad-\nvise him that pleading guilty subjected him to mandatory de-\nportation. He contended that if he had known this, he would\nnever have pleaded guilty. Delhorno referenced and included\nthe transcript from his change of plea hearing which shows\n\fNo. 18-1707 5\n\nthat the court also failed to address the immigration conse-\nquences of his guilty plea. In support of his arguments, he\ncited Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017), Padilla v. Ken-\ntucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59\n(1985).\n The government responded, stating that it believed the\nrecord needed to be developed further through a hearing be-\nfore the court ruled on the petition. The district court disa-\ngreed and denied Delhorno’s petition without a hearing. Del-\nhorno argues on appeal that this was a mistake. We review\nthe district court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing for\nan abuse of discretion. See Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227,\n235 (6th Cir. 1996), citing Green v. United States, 65 F.3d 546,\n548 (6th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Fuller, 86 F.3d 105,\n107 (7th Cir. 1996) (judge “had no duty to conduct an eviden-\ntiary hearing if, by analogy to summary judgment, he could\ndetermine on the basis of affidavits, depositions, or other doc-\numentary materials of evidentiary quality that there was no\ngenuinely contestable issue of fact”). As we explain below, the\nrecord here provided a sufficient basis to deny the petition\nwithout a hearing, so the district court acted within its discre-\ntion in denying a hearing.\n Delhorno filed a timely notice of appeal on April 2, 2018.\nHe also filed a motion in the Eleventh Circuit for a stay of re-\nmoval. That motion was denied on May 27, 2018, and Del-\nhorno was deported to Mexico.\nII. Analysis\n The writ of coram nobis is a means for a collateral attack\non a criminal conviction alleging errors of law or fact that af-\nfect the fundamental character of the conviction, including\n\f6 No. 18-1707\n\ninadequate counsel. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342\n(2013). It is similar to a habeas corpus petition and affords the\nsame type of relief, United States v. Bonansinga, 855 F.2d 476,\n478 (7th Cir. 1988), but it is available only when a defendant\nis no longer in custody and thus can no longer take advantage\nof habeas corpus relief. Stanbridge v. Scott, 791 F.3d 715, 720\nn.3 (7th Cir. 2015). According to the Supreme Court, the writ\nof coram nobis is to be used only in “extraordinary cases pre-\nsenting circumstances compelling its use to achieve justice,”\nwhere alternative remedies are not available. United States v.\nDenedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009), citing United States v. Morgan,\n346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954) (internal quotation marks omitted).\nWe have explained that a successful coram nobis petition\nmust satisfy three prongs: “(1) the error alleged is ‘of the most\nfundamental character’ as to render the criminal conviction\n‘invalid’; (2) there are ‘sound reasons’ for the defendant’s ‘fail-\nure to seek earlier relief’; and (3) ‘the defendant continues to\nsuffer from his conviction even though he is out of custody.’”\nUnited States v. Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 368 (7th Cir. 2016).\n In reviewing a district court’s denial of a writ of coram\nnobis without a hearing, this court conducts a de novo analysis\nof the legal conclusions and a factual review for clear error. Id.\nWe consider the three factors in a different order here than set\nforth above. We conclude that Delhorno continues to suffer\nfrom his conviction, but he likely cannot demonstrate funda-\nmental error, and he certainly cannot justify his failure to seek\nearlier relief. We affirm the denial of his petition for a writ of\ncoram nobis.\n\fNo. 18-1707 7\n\n 1. Continued Suffering\n First, we have no doubt that Delhorno continues to suffer\nfrom his conviction even though he is out of custody. We have\nexplained that coram nobis is\n a postconviction remedy, equivalent to habeas\n corpus or (for persons convicted in federal\n court) section 2255, for petitioners who have\n served their sentences and so cannot invoke ei-\n ther of those remedies but who as a result of\n having been convicted are laboring under some\n serious civil disability that they’d like to elimi-\n nate by setting aside their conviction—and re-\n moval from the United States is serious, civil,\n and a consequence of the petitioner’s convic-\n tion.\nClarke v. United States, 703 F.3d 1098, 1101 (7th Cir. 2013); see\nalso Martignoni v. United States, No. 10 Civ. 6671 JFK, 2011 WL\n4834217, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2011) (“Deportation is clearly\na legal consequence of conviction sufficient to warrant coram\nnobis relief where all other requirements are satisfied[.]”). Del-\nhorno is no longer in prison and is not on supervised release,\nso a writ of coram nobis is an appropriate means to challenge\nthe immigration consequences of his conviction. See Clarke,\n703 F.3d at 1101–02 (defendant on supervised release is in cus-\ntody for purposes of habeas corpus and therefore cannot seek\na writ of coram nobis).\n Delhorno has been deported from the country where he\nlived since he was three years old, back to a country where he\nlikely has minimal ties. His children and fiancée live in the\nUnited States, and he will not be able to return unless his\n\f8 No. 18-1707\n\nconviction is vacated. This is a significant additional penalty\nthat followed his term of imprisonment. These continuing ef-\nfects satisfy this prong of the coram nobis analysis.\n 2. Fundamental Error\n To secure a writ of coram nobis, the error in the defend-\nant’s criminal conviction must be “of the most fundamental\ncharacter” so as to render the conviction “invalid.” Wilkozek,\n822 F.3d at 368. Delhorno attempts to satisfy this prong\nthrough a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant\nto Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). To do\nthis, he must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was ob-\njectively unreasonable and that the deficient performance\nprejudiced the defense. Id. While we do not base our decision\non a failure to meet this prong of the coram nobis analysis\nwithout a hearing, it is very unlikely Delhorno could demon-\nstrate that he was prejudiced.\n In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that crimi-\nnal defense attorneys must inform non-citizen clients of the\nrisks of deportation arising from guilty pleas. 559 U.S. 356,\n366–68 (2010); see also Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342,\n345–47 (2013) (concluding that Padilla adopted a new rule and\nwas not retroactive). Delhorno’s guilty plea and sentencing\noccurred more than a year after Padilla was issued, and we are\ntroubled that apparently neither his counsel, the prosecutor,\nnor the court raised the issue of the mandatory immigration\nconsequences with him.1\n\n\n 1Delhorno’s lawyer alluded to these consequences at the sentencing\nhearing when he explained that Delhorno was seeking a visa to remain in\nthe United States. There does not appear to have been any discussion of\nmandatory deportation as a result of the conviction.\n\fNo. 18-1707 9\n\n We are not convinced, however, that this apparently defi-\ncient performance prejudiced Delhorno, as required for relief\nunder Strickland. Delhorno must show “there is a reasonable\nprobability that, but for counsel’s errors, [he] would not have\npled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” United\nStates v. Reeves, 695 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2012), quoting Bethel\nv. United States, 458 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Lee\nv. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1965 (2017). The evidence\nagainst Delhorno was very strong: he was stopped while driv-\ning with four kilograms of cocaine hidden in a trap compart-\nment. Delhorno himself showed the officers how to operate\nthe trap. Delhorno concedes that success at trial was a “long\nshot.” Given the likelihood of conviction at trial and a poten-\ntially longer prison sentence, coupled with the fact that Del-\nhorno was at least aware of the immigration issues, we find it\nunlikely that Delhorno would have proceeded to trial if he\nhad been given proper Padilla warnings.\n We are unpersuaded by Delhorno’s comparison of his sit-\nuation to that in Lee v. United States, a case in which the Su-\npreme Court found that the defendant established a reason-\nable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty if he\nhad known of the immigration consequences. 137 S. Ct. 1958,\n1969 (2017). In Lee, before the defendant pleaded guilty to an\naggravated felony, he had asked his attorney multiple times\nwhether he would be deported. Id. at 1967–68. His attorney\naffirmatively told him that he would not be deported. Id. at\n1963. Lee also specifically told the sentencing judge that de-\nportation would affect his decision to plead guilty. Id. at 1968.\nAfter discovering that he would be deported, Lee immedi-\nately filed a § 2255 motion. Id. at 1963. Both Lee and his attor-\nney testified at the subsequent hearing that he would not have\npleaded guilty if he had known he would be deported. Id.\n\f10 No. 18-1707\n\n In contrast, Delhorno has produced no contemporaneous\nevidence showing that he would not have pleaded guilty. His\nprotests appear to be more in the category of “post hoc asser-\ntions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but\nfor his attorney’s deficiencies.” Id. at 1967. These do not weigh\nin favor of upsetting Delhorno’s guilty plea through a writ of\ncoram nobis. Id. Despite our skepticism, though, the district\ncourt denied Delhorno’s request for a hearing to present his\nargument and evidence. If this prong were dispositive, it\nmight be necessary to remand for a hearing. Delhorno fails to\nsatisfy the final prong, however, so we need not reach a firm\nconclusion on whether a hearing was necessary on the merits.\n 3. Sound Reasons for Delay\n We agree with the district court that Delhorno failed to\ntake any steps regarding his immigration status until he filed\nthis coram nobis petition, five years after he was sentenced.\nAs noted, a person seeking a writ of coram nobis must offer\nsound reasons for his failure to seek relief earlier. Wilkozek,\n822 F.3d at 368. Delhorno has failed to justify his delay, and\non this ground we affirm the denial of his petition.\n Based on his presentence report, which was filed in April\n2012 in advance of his October 2012 sentencing, Delhorno\nknew or should have known that his conviction could lead to\nhis deportation. The report said that Delhorno knew his non-\ncitizenship could present problems for him and that he was\n“trying to make arrangements to remain in the United States.”\nThe report also said that ICE would investigate his case for\ndeportation following the entry of judgment. With this\nknowledge, Delhorno went ahead and pleaded guilty. At his\nsentencing hearing, his lawyer explained to the court that Del-\nhorno was seeking a visa because he was a resident alien and\n\fNo. 18-1707 11\n\nhad never sought citizenship. Also, as the district court noted,\nDelhorno would have likely discovered this immigration is-\nsue when he was classified as a “deportable alien” by the Fed-\neral Bureau of Prisons when he was taken into custody.2\n At the time when he knew or should have known about\nhis immigration issues, Delhorno had multiple avenues for re-\nlief. He could have filed a direct appeal. He also could have\nfiled a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He did\nneither. The statute of limitations for a habeas corpus petition\nwould have run from “the date on which the facts supporting\nthe claim or claims presented could have been discovered\nthrough the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4)\n(emphasis added). A reasonably diligent defendant would\nhave discovered the immigration issues by reviewing the\npresentence report, paying attention at the sentencing hear-\ning, and noticing his BOP classification. Delhorno had an en-\ntire year—until October 2013—to file a habeas petition.\n Delhorno has offered no justification for failing to seek ear-\nlier relief through less extraordinary channels. The record\nshows conclusively that he knew or should have known about\nhis immigration issues before, during, and after his\n\n 2 We assume for purposes of this appeal that no one ever told Del-\nhorno that he would certainly be deported (i.e., that he was subject to man-\ndatory deportation). At oral argument in this appeal, Delhorno’s counsel\nexplained that Delhorno may have pleaded guilty knowing there were im-\nmigration issues but with the understanding that there could be avenues\nfor him to continue living in the United States through some sort of visa.\nWe do not believe the distinction between a warning of mandatory depor-\ntation as opposed to likely deportation matters for our present purposes.\nDelhorno was clearly aware that there were immigration consequences to\nhis guilty plea. He chose to go ahead with his plea and did not raise any\nchallenges for five years.\n\f12 No. 18-1707\n\nsentencing. Delhorno’s five-year delay in addressing this is-\nsue was unreasonable and prevents the federal courts from\ngranting relief through the extraordinary form of a writ of co-\nram nobis. The district court’s denial of Delhorno’s petition is\n AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Ruben Delhorno\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1707\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nRUBEN DELHORNO,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 11-CR-46 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Defendant-appellant Ruben Del-\\nhorno filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis, a rare form of\\ncollateral attack on a criminal judgment. This ancient com-\\nmon-law remedy is available to correct errors of fact and law\\nin criminal cases, but only when: “(1) the error alleged is ‘of\\nthe most fundamental character’ as to render the criminal con-\\nviction ‘invalid’; (2) there are ‘sound reasons’ for the defend-\\nant’s ‘failure to seek earlier relief’; and (3) ‘the defendant\\n\\f2 No. 18-1707\\n\\ncontinues to suffer from his conviction even though he is out\\nof custody.’” United States v. Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 368 (7th\\nCir. 2016), citing United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685, 697 (7th\\nCir. 2007), and United States v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199, 203 (7th\\nCir. 1988). Delhorno fails the second requirement. He cannot\\noffer “sound reasons” for failing to seek earlier relief through\\na direct appeal or habeas corpus petition. We therefore affirm\\nthe district court’s decision denying Delhorno’s writ of coram\\nnobis.\\nI. Factual and Procedural Background\\n Delhorno, age 42, was born in Mexico but came to the\\nUnited States with his parents when he was just three years\\nold. He was living in the United States as a lawful permanent\\nresident. (He could have applied for citizenship but never\\ndid.) In 2011, Delhorno was pulled over for speeding. While\\nthe officer was writing a speeding ticket, another officer ar-\\nrived with his drug-detection canine. The dog sniffed the ve-\\nhicle and alerted to the presence of drugs. Another officer at\\nthe scene had been instructed in the installation of “trap”\\ncompartments in vehicles and noticed that Delhorno’s vehicle\\ncontained unusual wiring. The officers discovered four kilo-\\ngrams of cocaine in a trap compartment in Delhorno’s vehicle.\\n Delhorno was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern Dis-\\ntrict of Wisconsin for one count of possessing cocaine with in-\\ntent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) &\\n841(b)(1)(B). Delhorno pleaded guilty to the indictment on\\nJanuary 26, 2012. At the change of plea hearing, Delhorno\\nstated that he was born in Mexico and was a permanent resi-\\ndent of the United States. However, there was no discussion\\nabout the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, even\\nthough the hearing took place more than a year after the\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 3\\n\\nSupreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010),\\nthat a criminal defense lawyer provided ineffective assistance\\nof counsel by failing to advise his client that his guilty plea\\nwould subject him to automatic deportation.\\n Following the change of plea hearing, the United States\\nProbation Office prepared a presentence report that included\\nthis passage:\\n 49. Mr. Delhorno explains he was born in Mex-\\n ico, but came with his parents to the United\\n States when he was three years old. His family\\n settled in Chicago Heights, Illinois. Mr. Del-\\n horno notes his parents came to the United\\n States illegally, seeking better opportunities for\\n themselves and their children. In 1988, his par-\\n ents were able to take advantage of an amnesty\\n program and were granted legal residency sta-\\n tus. Mr. Delhorno notes at that time he also was\\n granted legal resident status. He acknowledges\\n at the age of 18, he could have applied for citi-\\n zenship, but he has not done so. Mr. Delhorno\\n understood all his friends were born in the\\n United States so he never thought of himself dif-\\n ferently, so he did not pursue citizenship. Mr.\\n Delhorno understands this may present problems for\\n him, but he is trying to make arrangements to remain\\n in the United States.\\n 50. Bureau of Immigrations and Customs En-\\n forcement confirmed Mr. Delhorno was granted\\n legal permanent resident status on 4/29/89. At\\n this time, the defendant is not under investigation\\n\\f4 No. 18-1707\\n\\n for deportation, but upon entry of judgement, the\\n matter will be investigated.\\nPresentence Report ¶¶ 49–50 (emphasis added).\\n Delhorno was sentenced on October 5, 2012. His lawyer\\ntold the judge that Delhorno was seeking a “visa to remain in\\nthe United States because he is a resident alien and never\\nsought citizenship[.]” Delhorno’s Sentencing Guideline range\\nwas 78 to 97 months in prison. He was sentenced to 60 months\\nin prison, followed by a supervised release term of four years.\\nThe court entered the written judgment and commitment or-\\nder that same day. Delhorno never filed a direct appeal or a\\nhabeas corpus petition.\\n On February 26, 2015, while Delhorno was in prison, he\\nfiled a motion to modify his term of imprisonment pursuant\\nto 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on a retroactive change to the\\nSentencing Guidelines. After briefing, this motion was de-\\nnied. On May 26, 2016, Delhorno filed an amended motion to\\nmodify his term of imprisonment pursuant to § 3582, which\\nwas also denied.\\n On approximately May 1, 2017, Delhorno completed his\\nprison sentence and was transferred to the custody of the U.S.\\nImmigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) for removal\\nprocedures. On October 13, 2017, Delhorno filed his petition\\nfor a writ of coram nobis. In the petition and attached affida-\\nvit, Delhorno argued that he received ineffective assistance of\\ncounsel in his criminal case because his lawyer failed to ad-\\nvise him that pleading guilty subjected him to mandatory de-\\nportation. He contended that if he had known this, he would\\nnever have pleaded guilty. Delhorno referenced and included\\nthe transcript from his change of plea hearing which shows\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 5\\n\\nthat the court also failed to address the immigration conse-\\nquences of his guilty plea. In support of his arguments, he\\ncited Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017), Padilla v. Ken-\\ntucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59\\n(1985).\\n The government responded, stating that it believed the\\nrecord needed to be developed further through a hearing be-\\nfore the court ruled on the petition. The district court disa-\\ngreed and denied Delhorno’s petition without a hearing. Del-\\nhorno argues on appeal that this was a mistake. We review\\nthe district court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing for\\nan abuse of discretion. See Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227,\\n235 (6th Cir. 1996), citing Green v. United States, 65 F.3d 546,\\n548 (6th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Fuller, 86 F.3d 105,\\n107 (7th Cir. 1996) (judge “had no duty to conduct an eviden-\\ntiary hearing if, by analogy to summary judgment, he could\\ndetermine on the basis of affidavits, depositions, or other doc-\\numentary materials of evidentiary quality that there was no\\ngenuinely contestable issue of fact”). As we explain below, the\\nrecord here provided a sufficient basis to deny the petition\\nwithout a hearing, so the district court acted within its discre-\\ntion in denying a hearing.\\n Delhorno filed a timely notice of appeal on April 2, 2018.\\nHe also filed a motion in the Eleventh Circuit for a stay of re-\\nmoval. That motion was denied on May 27, 2018, and Del-\\nhorno was deported to Mexico.\\nII. Analysis\\n The writ of coram nobis is a means for a collateral attack\\non a criminal conviction alleging errors of law or fact that af-\\nfect the fundamental character of the conviction, including\\n\\f6 No. 18-1707\\n\\ninadequate counsel. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342\\n(2013). It is similar to a habeas corpus petition and affords the\\nsame type of relief, United States v. Bonansinga, 855 F.2d 476,\\n478 (7th Cir. 1988), but it is available only when a defendant\\nis no longer in custody and thus can no longer take advantage\\nof habeas corpus relief. Stanbridge v. Scott, 791 F.3d 715, 720\\nn.3 (7th Cir. 2015). According to the Supreme Court, the writ\\nof coram nobis is to be used only in “extraordinary cases pre-\\nsenting circumstances compelling its use to achieve justice,”\\nwhere alternative remedies are not available. United States v.\\nDenedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009), citing United States v. Morgan,\\n346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\nWe have explained that a successful coram nobis petition\\nmust satisfy three prongs: “(1) the error alleged is ‘of the most\\nfundamental character’ as to render the criminal conviction\\n‘invalid’; (2) there are ‘sound reasons’ for the defendant’s ‘fail-\\nure to seek earlier relief’; and (3) ‘the defendant continues to\\nsuffer from his conviction even though he is out of custody.’”\\nUnited States v. Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 368 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n In reviewing a district court’s denial of a writ of coram\\nnobis without a hearing, this court conducts a de novo analysis\\nof the legal conclusions and a factual review for clear error. Id.\\nWe consider the three factors in a different order here than set\\nforth above. We conclude that Delhorno continues to suffer\\nfrom his conviction, but he likely cannot demonstrate funda-\\nmental error, and he certainly cannot justify his failure to seek\\nearlier relief. We affirm the denial of his petition for a writ of\\ncoram nobis.\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 7\\n\\n 1. Continued Suffering\\n First, we have no doubt that Delhorno continues to suffer\\nfrom his conviction even though he is out of custody. We have\\nexplained that coram nobis is\\n a postconviction remedy, equivalent to habeas\\n corpus or (for persons convicted in federal\\n court) section 2255, for petitioners who have\\n served their sentences and so cannot invoke ei-\\n ther of those remedies but who as a result of\\n having been convicted are laboring under some\\n serious civil disability that they’d like to elimi-\\n nate by setting aside their conviction—and re-\\n moval from the United States is serious, civil,\\n and a consequence of the petitioner’s convic-\\n tion.\\nClarke v. United States, 703 F.3d 1098, 1101 (7th Cir. 2013); see\\nalso Martignoni v. United States, No. 10 Civ. 6671 JFK, 2011 WL\\n4834217, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2011) (“Deportation is clearly\\na legal consequence of conviction sufficient to warrant coram\\nnobis relief where all other requirements are satisfied[.]”). Del-\\nhorno is no longer in prison and is not on supervised release,\\nso a writ of coram nobis is an appropriate means to challenge\\nthe immigration consequences of his conviction. See Clarke,\\n703 F.3d at 1101–02 (defendant on supervised release is in cus-\\ntody for purposes of habeas corpus and therefore cannot seek\\na writ of coram nobis).\\n Delhorno has been deported from the country where he\\nlived since he was three years old, back to a country where he\\nlikely has minimal ties. His children and fiancée live in the\\nUnited States, and he will not be able to return unless his\\n\\f8 No. 18-1707\\n\\nconviction is vacated. This is a significant additional penalty\\nthat followed his term of imprisonment. These continuing ef-\\nfects satisfy this prong of the coram nobis analysis.\\n 2. Fundamental Error\\n To secure a writ of coram nobis, the error in the defend-\\nant’s criminal conviction must be “of the most fundamental\\ncharacter” so as to render the conviction “invalid.” Wilkozek,\\n822 F.3d at 368. Delhorno attempts to satisfy this prong\\nthrough a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant\\nto Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). To do\\nthis, he must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was ob-\\njectively unreasonable and that the deficient performance\\nprejudiced the defense. Id. While we do not base our decision\\non a failure to meet this prong of the coram nobis analysis\\nwithout a hearing, it is very unlikely Delhorno could demon-\\nstrate that he was prejudiced.\\n In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that crimi-\\nnal defense attorneys must inform non-citizen clients of the\\nrisks of deportation arising from guilty pleas. 559 U.S. 356,\\n366–68 (2010); see also Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342,\\n345–47 (2013) (concluding that Padilla adopted a new rule and\\nwas not retroactive). Delhorno’s guilty plea and sentencing\\noccurred more than a year after Padilla was issued, and we are\\ntroubled that apparently neither his counsel, the prosecutor,\\nnor the court raised the issue of the mandatory immigration\\nconsequences with him.1\\n\\n\\n 1Delhorno’s lawyer alluded to these consequences at the sentencing\\nhearing when he explained that Delhorno was seeking a visa to remain in\\nthe United States. There does not appear to have been any discussion of\\nmandatory deportation as a result of the conviction.\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 9\\n\\n We are not convinced, however, that this apparently defi-\\ncient performance prejudiced Delhorno, as required for relief\\nunder Strickland. Delhorno must show “there is a reasonable\\nprobability that, but for counsel’s errors, [he] would not have\\npled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” United\\nStates v. Reeves, 695 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2012), quoting Bethel\\nv. United States, 458 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Lee\\nv. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1965 (2017). The evidence\\nagainst Delhorno was very strong: he was stopped while driv-\\ning with four kilograms of cocaine hidden in a trap compart-\\nment. Delhorno himself showed the officers how to operate\\nthe trap. Delhorno concedes that success at trial was a “long\\nshot.” Given the likelihood of conviction at trial and a poten-\\ntially longer prison sentence, coupled with the fact that Del-\\nhorno was at least aware of the immigration issues, we find it\\nunlikely that Delhorno would have proceeded to trial if he\\nhad been given proper Padilla warnings.\\n We are unpersuaded by Delhorno’s comparison of his sit-\\nuation to that in Lee v. United States, a case in which the Su-\\npreme Court found that the defendant established a reason-\\nable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty if he\\nhad known of the immigration consequences. 137 S. Ct. 1958,\\n1969 (2017). In Lee, before the defendant pleaded guilty to an\\naggravated felony, he had asked his attorney multiple times\\nwhether he would be deported. Id. at 1967–68. His attorney\\naffirmatively told him that he would not be deported. Id. at\\n1963. Lee also specifically told the sentencing judge that de-\\nportation would affect his decision to plead guilty. Id. at 1968.\\nAfter discovering that he would be deported, Lee immedi-\\nately filed a § 2255 motion. Id. at 1963. Both Lee and his attor-\\nney testified at the subsequent hearing that he would not have\\npleaded guilty if he had known he would be deported. Id.\\n\\f10 No. 18-1707\\n\\n In contrast, Delhorno has produced no contemporaneous\\nevidence showing that he would not have pleaded guilty. His\\nprotests appear to be more in the category of “post hoc asser-\\ntions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but\\nfor his attorney’s deficiencies.” Id. at 1967. These do not weigh\\nin favor of upsetting Delhorno’s guilty plea through a writ of\\ncoram nobis. Id. Despite our skepticism, though, the district\\ncourt denied Delhorno’s request for a hearing to present his\\nargument and evidence. If this prong were dispositive, it\\nmight be necessary to remand for a hearing. Delhorno fails to\\nsatisfy the final prong, however, so we need not reach a firm\\nconclusion on whether a hearing was necessary on the merits.\\n 3. Sound Reasons for Delay\\n We agree with the district court that Delhorno failed to\\ntake any steps regarding his immigration status until he filed\\nthis coram nobis petition, five years after he was sentenced.\\nAs noted, a person seeking a writ of coram nobis must offer\\nsound reasons for his failure to seek relief earlier. Wilkozek,\\n822 F.3d at 368. Delhorno has failed to justify his delay, and\\non this ground we affirm the denial of his petition.\\n Based on his presentence report, which was filed in April\\n2012 in advance of his October 2012 sentencing, Delhorno\\nknew or should have known that his conviction could lead to\\nhis deportation. The report said that Delhorno knew his non-\\ncitizenship could present problems for him and that he was\\n“trying to make arrangements to remain in the United States.”\\nThe report also said that ICE would investigate his case for\\ndeportation following the entry of judgment. With this\\nknowledge, Delhorno went ahead and pleaded guilty. At his\\nsentencing hearing, his lawyer explained to the court that Del-\\nhorno was seeking a visa because he was a resident alien and\\n\\fNo. 18-1707 11\\n\\nhad never sought citizenship. Also, as the district court noted,\\nDelhorno would have likely discovered this immigration is-\\nsue when he was classified as a “deportable alien” by the Fed-\\neral Bureau of Prisons when he was taken into custody.2\\n At the time when he knew or should have known about\\nhis immigration issues, Delhorno had multiple avenues for re-\\nlief. He could have filed a direct appeal. He also could have\\nfiled a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He did\\nneither. The statute of limitations for a habeas corpus petition\\nwould have run from “the date on which the facts supporting\\nthe claim or claims presented could have been discovered\\nthrough the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4)\\n(emphasis added). A reasonably diligent defendant would\\nhave discovered the immigration issues by reviewing the\\npresentence report, paying attention at the sentencing hear-\\ning, and noticing his BOP classification. Delhorno had an en-\\ntire year—until October 2013—to file a habeas petition.\\n Delhorno has offered no justification for failing to seek ear-\\nlier relief through less extraordinary channels. The record\\nshows conclusively that he knew or should have known about\\nhis immigration issues before, during, and after his\\n\\n 2 We assume for purposes of this appeal that no one ever told Del-\\nhorno that he would certainly be deported (i.e., that he was subject to man-\\ndatory deportation). At oral argument in this appeal, Delhorno’s counsel\\nexplained that Delhorno may have pleaded guilty knowing there were im-\\nmigration issues but with the understanding that there could be avenues\\nfor him to continue living in the United States through some sort of visa.\\nWe do not believe the distinction between a warning of mandatory depor-\\ntation as opposed to likely deportation matters for our present purposes.\\nDelhorno was clearly aware that there were immigration consequences to\\nhis guilty plea. He chose to go ahead with his plea and did not raise any\\nchallenges for five years.\\n\\f12 No. 18-1707\\n\\nsentencing. Delhorno’s five-year delay in addressing this is-\\nsue was unreasonable and prevents the federal courts from\\ngranting relief through the extraordinary form of a writ of co-\\nram nobis. The district court’s denial of Delhorno’s petition is\\n AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":682,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589048,"string":"4,589,048"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Hiram Graham"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2156"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2156\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nHIRAM OMAR GRAHAM,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 17-CR-220 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019— DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ST. EVE, Cir-\\ncuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM. Hiram Graham pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act\\nrobbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. At\\nsentencing, he argued that his financial hardships, his extraor-\\ndinary family situation, and his lack of a criminal record\\nshould mitigate his sentence. He now contends that the dis-\\ntrict court failed to address these arguments or adequately ex-\\nplain his 144-month, below-guidelines prison sentence. But\\n\\f2 No. 18-2156\\n\\nthe district court did not commit these procedural errors, so\\nwe affirm the judgment.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Over a five-month period, Graham robbed six Aldi gro-\\ncery stores at gunpoint. He had worked at an Aldi in Milwau-\\nkee for six years, before he was fired four months before the\\nfirst robbery for stealing food. Graham targeted Aldi stores\\nbecause of his insider knowledge, including his knowledge\\nthat Aldi trains employees to acquiesce to robbers. Graham\\nwould enter a store a few minutes before closing, hide until it\\nclosed, then approach employees with his gun drawn and in-\\nstruct them to empty the safe. Two weeks after the sixth rob-\\nbery, Graham was arrested, and he later confessed.\\n Graham pleaded guilty to six counts of Hobbs Act rob-\\nbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and one count of using a firearm\\nduring of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). In\\ncalculating the applicable imprisonment range under the Sen-\\ntencing Guidelines, the district court found that Graham had\\na total offense level of 28 and criminal history category of I,\\ngiving him a range of 78 to 97 months for each robbery, fol-\\nlowed by a mandatory consecutive sentence of 84 months for\\nthe § 924(c) conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) (man-\\ndating that sentence for 924(c) conviction be imposed consec-\\nutively). Consistent with Graham’s plea agreement, the gov-\\nernment recommended a within-guidelines sentence.\\n At sentencing, Graham argued that he should receive the\\n“least restrictive sentence available”—just 84 months’ impris-\\nonment for the § 924(c) conviction and no additional time—\\nbecause his case was unique. For thirty years, Graham had\\nbeen a productive member of society, graduating high school\\n\\fNo. 18-2156 3\\n\\nand working two full-time jobs to support his girlfriend and\\nsix children. Counsel recounted that Graham had lived a\\ncrime-free life until the financial pressures of six children, one\\nwith serious medical issues, overwhelmed him and drove\\nhim to use drugs, steal food, and, finally, rob his former em-\\nployer under the influence of cocaine. Counsel stressed that\\nGraham had learned his lesson, was statistically “unlikely to\\nreoffend,” and that, because of his family support, there was\\nevery reason to believe that he would be rehabilitated.\\n Before hearing the parties’ arguments, the district court\\nstated that it had reviewed Graham’s twelve-page sentencing\\nmemorandum and other submissions. And after hearing all\\nthe arguments, the court commented that it understood that\\nGraham, “like so many,” had been “confronted with financial\\nchallenges,” which “may serve as an explanation for” his con-\\nduct. But, the court continued, this did “not provide a mean-\\ningful excuse for anyone to take matters into their own hands\\nand go about taking from others.” Graham’s criminal con-\\nduct, the court emphasized, had not been “spur of the mo-\\nment,” but “well-planned, executed such that it took law en-\\nforcement” additional time to discover who the perpetrator\\nwas, and that there was “too much in the way of criminal con-\\nduct” to justify the sentence Graham requested.\\n Next, the district court discussed at some length the exor-\\nbitant costs of incarceration and the ballooning prison popu-\\nlation. It explained that “this branch of the court and others\\nare beginning to factor into their analysis of the cost benefit to\\nsociety” this issue in deciding “how much is enough.”\\n The court then determined that, considering “uniformity,\\nproportionality, certainty, and cost,” concurrent sentences of\\n60 months’ imprisonment for each robbery was appropriate,\\n\\f4 No. 18-2156\\n\\nfollowed by the mandatory consecutive sentence of 84\\nmonths for the firearm conviction, for a total sentence of 144\\nmonths. The sentence was justified, the court concluded, by\\nthe “totality of the facts and circumstances” underlying the\\nsix robberies.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review claimed procedural errors de novo. See United\\nStates v. Lockwood, 840 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2016). Graham\\nfirst argues that the district court procedurally erred when it\\nfailed to address his mitigation arguments and adequately ex-\\nplain its consideration of them. At sentencing, a court must\\naddress the parties’ principal arguments, and “where a de-\\nfendant’s principal argument is not so weak as not to merit\\ndiscussion, the court must explain its reason for rejecting that\\nargument.” United States v. Reed, 859 F.3d 468, 472 (7th Cir.\\n2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\n As to the primary factor concerning the sentence imposed,\\nwe turn first to Graham’s claim of financial hardship. Alt-\\nhough the district court did not say much about how this mit-\\nigation argument influenced its sentence, its remarks demon-\\nstrate that it was unpersuaded that Graham’s severe and es-\\ncalating financial troubles outweighed the aggravating cir-\\ncumstances of his six robberies. The court acknowledged Gra-\\nham’s financial challenges but responded that they did not of-\\nfer an excuse for armed robbery. Graham maintains that this\\nstatement alone was insufficient, but a “short explanation” for\\nrejecting a mitigating argument “will suffice where the con-\\ntext and record make clear the reasoning underlying the dis-\\ntrict court’s conclusion.” United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d\\n746, 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.\\n\\fNo. 18-2156 5\\n\\n338, 358–59 (2007)); see United States v. Castaldi, 743 F.3d 589,\\n595 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n Here, directly after mentioning Graham’s financial hard-\\nship, the court noted that the robberies were “not spur of the\\nmoment,” but “well-planned,” and involved conduct too\\negregious—“heinous” and “contrary to every moral pre-\\ncept”—to allow it to sentence him as leniently as his counsel\\nhad advocated.\\n As to the other mitigating factors Graham raised—his lack\\nof a criminal record, strong family ties, and drug use—he is\\ncorrect; the district court did not discuss them. And a court\\nthat fails to mention a ground of recognized legal merit likely\\nerrs. United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir.\\n2005). But the requirement that a court specifically address the\\ndefendant’s principal arguments “applies with less force”\\nwhere it receives written and oral sentencing arguments and\\nimposes a prison sentence “significantly below the applicable\\nguidelines range.” United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835, 837\\n(7th Cir. 2009). And a court’s statement that it has read the\\ndefendant’s submissions is often “enough to satisfy us that [it\\nhas] considered the argument and rejected it.” United States\\nv. Ramirez-Gutierrez, 503 F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir. 2007). That is\\nwhat happened here: the district court stated that it had re-\\nviewed Graham’s submissions and heard oral argument be-\\nfore explaining its below-guidelines sentence. Besides, the ob-\\nligation to address mitigating arguments decreases when a\\ndefendant presents “stock arguments … about his family sit-\\nuation and lack of criminal history,” as Graham did. United\\nStates v. Martinez, 520 F.3d 749, 753 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal\\nquotation marks and alterations omitted). These “are pre-\\ncisely the types of routine contentions that a sentencing court\\n\\f6 No. 18-2156\\n\\nis certainly free to reject without discussion.” Id. (internal quo-\\ntation marks omitted).\\n Graham also faults the district court for failing to address\\nhis extraordinary family circumstances as a father and pro-\\nvider for six children, one with medical issues. He points to\\ncases in which we remanded because the district court did not\\ndiscuss a defendant’s unusual family situation. True enough,\\na defendant’s family circumstances may be a legitimate basis\\nfor a below-guidelines sentence if the district court finds “that\\na defendant’s family ties and responsibilities … are so unu-\\nsual that they may be characterized as extraordinary.”\\nSchroeder, 536 F.3d at 755–56 (alteration in original and cita-\\ntions omitted). But Graham did not argue that his incarcera-\\ntion would leave his children in imminent danger or com-\\npletely without care—he argued that the financial strain on\\nthe family would only increase if he was incarcerated. See id.\\nat 750–51, 756 (defendant was primary caregiver for daughter\\nwhose significant medical problems made daycare unsafe\\nand defendant’s absence would make arranging care impos-\\nsible). Sadly, as we have observed: “Most families suffer emo-\\ntional and financial harm when a parent is imprisoned. Any\\nexperienced district judge has heard about those effects many\\ntimes and must recognize that those effects are consequences\\nof the parent’s crime, not the sentence imposed.” United States\\nv. Gary, 613 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2010). Graham’s contention\\nthat his large family would lose its main breadwinner and\\nthat his children would suffer from their father’s absence, was\\nnot extraordinary enough to warrant specific discussion.\\nSee Martinez, 520 F.3d at 753. Moreover, the focus of Graham’s\\nargument about his family was how the financial pressures of\\nproviding for them led Graham to commit these crimes, and\\nthe court addressed that mitigating argument.\\n\\fNo. 18-2156 7\\n\\n Next, Graham says that the court improperly focused on\\nthe costs of incarceration to the exclusion of his substantial\\nmitigating arguments, and therefore failed to adequately ex-\\nplain the sentence. But even with this incidental policy dis-\\ncussion, the district court did address Graham’s strongest\\nmitigating argument (financial hardship) and explained that\\nit was imposing 60 months for each armed robbery to account\\nfor the egregiousness of Graham’s criminal conduct. That is\\nenough “to allow for meaningful appellate review and to pro-\\nmote the perception of fair sentencing.” Gall v. United States,\\n552 U.S. 38, 590 (2007); see also United States v. Washington,\\n739 F.3d 1080, 1081 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n And the court’s discussion about incarceration costs, alt-\\nhough not explicitly mentioned in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), played\\ninto its “analysis of the cost benefit to society, [and] the benefit\\nto the inmate.” See United States v. DuPriest, 794 F.3d 881, 884\\n(7th Cir. 2015) (noting that same district judge’s commentary\\non prison costs was proper in the context of discussing\\n§ 3553(a) sentencing factors). In any event, the court reduced\\nthe sentence because of its views on the costs of incarceration,\\nso Graham arguably benefited from the court raising a miti-\\ngating argument it found more persuasive.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court reviewed the § 3553(a) factors, ad-\\ndressed Graham’s primary mitigation argument, and stressed\\nthe aggravating fact that Graham had committed six rob-\\nberies. This explanation allows for deferential appellate re-\\nview, and thus we affirm the judgment.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4366301/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"KANNE\": \", Cir cuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Cir cuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589048/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Hiram Graham\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2156\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nHIRAM OMAR GRAHAM,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\n No. 17-CR-220 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019— DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ST. EVE, Cir-\ncuit Judges.\n PER CURIAM. Hiram Graham pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act\nrobbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. At\nsentencing, he argued that his financial hardships, his extraor-\ndinary family situation, and his lack of a criminal record\nshould mitigate his sentence. He now contends that the dis-\ntrict court failed to address these arguments or adequately ex-\nplain his 144-month, below-guidelines prison sentence. But\n\f2 No. 18-2156\n\nthe district court did not commit these procedural errors, so\nwe affirm the judgment.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Over a five-month period, Graham robbed six Aldi gro-\ncery stores at gunpoint. He had worked at an Aldi in Milwau-\nkee for six years, before he was fired four months before the\nfirst robbery for stealing food. Graham targeted Aldi stores\nbecause of his insider knowledge, including his knowledge\nthat Aldi trains employees to acquiesce to robbers. Graham\nwould enter a store a few minutes before closing, hide until it\nclosed, then approach employees with his gun drawn and in-\nstruct them to empty the safe. Two weeks after the sixth rob-\nbery, Graham was arrested, and he later confessed.\n Graham pleaded guilty to six counts of Hobbs Act rob-\nbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and one count of using a firearm\nduring of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). In\ncalculating the applicable imprisonment range under the Sen-\ntencing Guidelines, the district court found that Graham had\na total offense level of 28 and criminal history category of I,\ngiving him a range of 78 to 97 months for each robbery, fol-\nlowed by a mandatory consecutive sentence of 84 months for\nthe § 924(c) conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) (man-\ndating that sentence for 924(c) conviction be imposed consec-\nutively). Consistent with Graham’s plea agreement, the gov-\nernment recommended a within-guidelines sentence.\n At sentencing, Graham argued that he should receive the\n“least restrictive sentence available”—just 84 months’ impris-\nonment for the § 924(c) conviction and no additional time—\nbecause his case was unique. For thirty years, Graham had\nbeen a productive member of society, graduating high school\n\fNo. 18-2156 3\n\nand working two full-time jobs to support his girlfriend and\nsix children. Counsel recounted that Graham had lived a\ncrime-free life until the financial pressures of six children, one\nwith serious medical issues, overwhelmed him and drove\nhim to use drugs, steal food, and, finally, rob his former em-\nployer under the influence of cocaine. Counsel stressed that\nGraham had learned his lesson, was statistically “unlikely to\nreoffend,” and that, because of his family support, there was\nevery reason to believe that he would be rehabilitated.\n Before hearing the parties’ arguments, the district court\nstated that it had reviewed Graham’s twelve-page sentencing\nmemorandum and other submissions. And after hearing all\nthe arguments, the court commented that it understood that\nGraham, “like so many,” had been “confronted with financial\nchallenges,” which “may serve as an explanation for” his con-\nduct. But, the court continued, this did “not provide a mean-\ningful excuse for anyone to take matters into their own hands\nand go about taking from others.” Graham’s criminal con-\nduct, the court emphasized, had not been “spur of the mo-\nment,” but “well-planned, executed such that it took law en-\nforcement” additional time to discover who the perpetrator\nwas, and that there was “too much in the way of criminal con-\nduct” to justify the sentence Graham requested.\n Next, the district court discussed at some length the exor-\nbitant costs of incarceration and the ballooning prison popu-\nlation. It explained that “this branch of the court and others\nare beginning to factor into their analysis of the cost benefit to\nsociety” this issue in deciding “how much is enough.”\n The court then determined that, considering “uniformity,\nproportionality, certainty, and cost,” concurrent sentences of\n60 months’ imprisonment for each robbery was appropriate,\n\f4 No. 18-2156\n\nfollowed by the mandatory consecutive sentence of 84\nmonths for the firearm conviction, for a total sentence of 144\nmonths. The sentence was justified, the court concluded, by\nthe “totality of the facts and circumstances” underlying the\nsix robberies.\n II. ANALYSIS\n We review claimed procedural errors de novo. See United\nStates v. Lockwood, 840 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2016). Graham\nfirst argues that the district court procedurally erred when it\nfailed to address his mitigation arguments and adequately ex-\nplain its consideration of them. At sentencing, a court must\naddress the parties’ principal arguments, and “where a de-\nfendant’s principal argument is not so weak as not to merit\ndiscussion, the court must explain its reason for rejecting that\nargument.” United States v. Reed, 859 F.3d 468, 472 (7th Cir.\n2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).\n As to the primary factor concerning the sentence imposed,\nwe turn first to Graham’s claim of financial hardship. Alt-\nhough the district court did not say much about how this mit-\nigation argument influenced its sentence, its remarks demon-\nstrate that it was unpersuaded that Graham’s severe and es-\ncalating financial troubles outweighed the aggravating cir-\ncumstances of his six robberies. The court acknowledged Gra-\nham’s financial challenges but responded that they did not of-\nfer an excuse for armed robbery. Graham maintains that this\nstatement alone was insufficient, but a “short explanation” for\nrejecting a mitigating argument “will suffice where the con-\ntext and record make clear the reasoning underlying the dis-\ntrict court’s conclusion.” United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d\n746, 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.\n\fNo. 18-2156 5\n\n338, 358–59 (2007)); see United States v. Castaldi, 743 F.3d 589,\n595 (7th Cir. 2014).\n Here, directly after mentioning Graham’s financial hard-\nship, the court noted that the robberies were “not spur of the\nmoment,” but “well-planned,” and involved conduct too\negregious—“heinous” and “contrary to every moral pre-\ncept”—to allow it to sentence him as leniently as his counsel\nhad advocated.\n As to the other mitigating factors Graham raised—his lack\nof a criminal record, strong family ties, and drug use—he is\ncorrect; the district court did not discuss them. And a court\nthat fails to mention a ground of recognized legal merit likely\nerrs. United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir.\n2005). But the requirement that a court specifically address the\ndefendant’s principal arguments “applies with less force”\nwhere it receives written and oral sentencing arguments and\nimposes a prison sentence “significantly below the applicable\nguidelines range.” United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835, 837\n(7th Cir. 2009). And a court’s statement that it has read the\ndefendant’s submissions is often “enough to satisfy us that [it\nhas] considered the argument and rejected it.” United States\nv. Ramirez-Gutierrez, 503 F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir. 2007). That is\nwhat happened here: the district court stated that it had re-\nviewed Graham’s submissions and heard oral argument be-\nfore explaining its below-guidelines sentence. Besides, the ob-\nligation to address mitigating arguments decreases when a\ndefendant presents “stock arguments … about his family sit-\nuation and lack of criminal history,” as Graham did. United\nStates v. Martinez, 520 F.3d 749, 753 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal\nquotation marks and alterations omitted). These “are pre-\ncisely the types of routine contentions that a sentencing court\n\f6 No. 18-2156\n\nis certainly free to reject without discussion.” Id. (internal quo-\ntation marks omitted).\n Graham also faults the district court for failing to address\nhis extraordinary family circumstances as a father and pro-\nvider for six children, one with medical issues. He points to\ncases in which we remanded because the district court did not\ndiscuss a defendant’s unusual family situation. True enough,\na defendant’s family circumstances may be a legitimate basis\nfor a below-guidelines sentence if the district court finds “that\na defendant’s family ties and responsibilities … are so unu-\nsual that they may be characterized as extraordinary.”\nSchroeder, 536 F.3d at 755–56 (alteration in original and cita-\ntions omitted). But Graham did not argue that his incarcera-\ntion would leave his children in imminent danger or com-\npletely without care—he argued that the financial strain on\nthe family would only increase if he was incarcerated. See id.\nat 750–51, 756 (defendant was primary caregiver for daughter\nwhose significant medical problems made daycare unsafe\nand defendant’s absence would make arranging care impos-\nsible). Sadly, as we have observed: “Most families suffer emo-\ntional and financial harm when a parent is imprisoned. Any\nexperienced district judge has heard about those effects many\ntimes and must recognize that those effects are consequences\nof the parent’s crime, not the sentence imposed.” United States\nv. Gary, 613 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2010). Graham’s contention\nthat his large family would lose its main breadwinner and\nthat his children would suffer from their father’s absence, was\nnot extraordinary enough to warrant specific discussion.\nSee Martinez, 520 F.3d at 753. Moreover, the focus of Graham’s\nargument about his family was how the financial pressures of\nproviding for them led Graham to commit these crimes, and\nthe court addressed that mitigating argument.\n\fNo. 18-2156 7\n\n Next, Graham says that the court improperly focused on\nthe costs of incarceration to the exclusion of his substantial\nmitigating arguments, and therefore failed to adequately ex-\nplain the sentence. But even with this incidental policy dis-\ncussion, the district court did address Graham’s strongest\nmitigating argument (financial hardship) and explained that\nit was imposing 60 months for each armed robbery to account\nfor the egregiousness of Graham’s criminal conduct. That is\nenough “to allow for meaningful appellate review and to pro-\nmote the perception of fair sentencing.” Gall v. United States,\n552 U.S. 38, 590 (2007); see also United States v. Washington,\n739 F.3d 1080, 1081 (7th Cir. 2014).\n And the court’s discussion about incarceration costs, alt-\nhough not explicitly mentioned in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), played\ninto its “analysis of the cost benefit to society, [and] the benefit\nto the inmate.” See United States v. DuPriest, 794 F.3d 881, 884\n(7th Cir. 2015) (noting that same district judge’s commentary\non prison costs was proper in the context of discussing\n§ 3553(a) sentencing factors). In any event, the court reduced\nthe sentence because of its views on the costs of incarceration,\nso Graham arguably benefited from the court raising a miti-\ngating argument it found more persuasive.\n III. CONCLUSION\n The district court reviewed the § 3553(a) factors, ad-\ndressed Graham’s primary mitigation argument, and stressed\nthe aggravating fact that Graham had committed six rob-\nberies. This explanation allows for deferential appellate re-\nview, and thus we affirm the judgment.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Hiram Graham\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2156\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nHIRAM OMAR GRAHAM,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 17-CR-220 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019— DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ST. EVE, Cir-\\ncuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM. Hiram Graham pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act\\nrobbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. At\\nsentencing, he argued that his financial hardships, his extraor-\\ndinary family situation, and his lack of a criminal record\\nshould mitigate his sentence. He now contends that the dis-\\ntrict court failed to address these arguments or adequately ex-\\nplain his 144-month, below-guidelines prison sentence. But\\n\\f2 No. 18-2156\\n\\nthe district court did not commit these procedural errors, so\\nwe affirm the judgment.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Over a five-month period, Graham robbed six Aldi gro-\\ncery stores at gunpoint. He had worked at an Aldi in Milwau-\\nkee for six years, before he was fired four months before the\\nfirst robbery for stealing food. Graham targeted Aldi stores\\nbecause of his insider knowledge, including his knowledge\\nthat Aldi trains employees to acquiesce to robbers. Graham\\nwould enter a store a few minutes before closing, hide until it\\nclosed, then approach employees with his gun drawn and in-\\nstruct them to empty the safe. Two weeks after the sixth rob-\\nbery, Graham was arrested, and he later confessed.\\n Graham pleaded guilty to six counts of Hobbs Act rob-\\nbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and one count of using a firearm\\nduring of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). In\\ncalculating the applicable imprisonment range under the Sen-\\ntencing Guidelines, the district court found that Graham had\\na total offense level of 28 and criminal history category of I,\\ngiving him a range of 78 to 97 months for each robbery, fol-\\nlowed by a mandatory consecutive sentence of 84 months for\\nthe § 924(c) conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) (man-\\ndating that sentence for 924(c) conviction be imposed consec-\\nutively). Consistent with Graham’s plea agreement, the gov-\\nernment recommended a within-guidelines sentence.\\n At sentencing, Graham argued that he should receive the\\n“least restrictive sentence available”—just 84 months’ impris-\\nonment for the § 924(c) conviction and no additional time—\\nbecause his case was unique. For thirty years, Graham had\\nbeen a productive member of society, graduating high school\\n\\fNo. 18-2156 3\\n\\nand working two full-time jobs to support his girlfriend and\\nsix children. Counsel recounted that Graham had lived a\\ncrime-free life until the financial pressures of six children, one\\nwith serious medical issues, overwhelmed him and drove\\nhim to use drugs, steal food, and, finally, rob his former em-\\nployer under the influence of cocaine. Counsel stressed that\\nGraham had learned his lesson, was statistically “unlikely to\\nreoffend,” and that, because of his family support, there was\\nevery reason to believe that he would be rehabilitated.\\n Before hearing the parties’ arguments, the district court\\nstated that it had reviewed Graham’s twelve-page sentencing\\nmemorandum and other submissions. And after hearing all\\nthe arguments, the court commented that it understood that\\nGraham, “like so many,” had been “confronted with financial\\nchallenges,” which “may serve as an explanation for” his con-\\nduct. But, the court continued, this did “not provide a mean-\\ningful excuse for anyone to take matters into their own hands\\nand go about taking from others.” Graham’s criminal con-\\nduct, the court emphasized, had not been “spur of the mo-\\nment,” but “well-planned, executed such that it took law en-\\nforcement” additional time to discover who the perpetrator\\nwas, and that there was “too much in the way of criminal con-\\nduct” to justify the sentence Graham requested.\\n Next, the district court discussed at some length the exor-\\nbitant costs of incarceration and the ballooning prison popu-\\nlation. It explained that “this branch of the court and others\\nare beginning to factor into their analysis of the cost benefit to\\nsociety” this issue in deciding “how much is enough.”\\n The court then determined that, considering “uniformity,\\nproportionality, certainty, and cost,” concurrent sentences of\\n60 months’ imprisonment for each robbery was appropriate,\\n\\f4 No. 18-2156\\n\\nfollowed by the mandatory consecutive sentence of 84\\nmonths for the firearm conviction, for a total sentence of 144\\nmonths. The sentence was justified, the court concluded, by\\nthe “totality of the facts and circumstances” underlying the\\nsix robberies.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review claimed procedural errors de novo. See United\\nStates v. Lockwood, 840 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2016). Graham\\nfirst argues that the district court procedurally erred when it\\nfailed to address his mitigation arguments and adequately ex-\\nplain its consideration of them. At sentencing, a court must\\naddress the parties’ principal arguments, and “where a de-\\nfendant’s principal argument is not so weak as not to merit\\ndiscussion, the court must explain its reason for rejecting that\\nargument.” United States v. Reed, 859 F.3d 468, 472 (7th Cir.\\n2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\n As to the primary factor concerning the sentence imposed,\\nwe turn first to Graham’s claim of financial hardship. Alt-\\nhough the district court did not say much about how this mit-\\nigation argument influenced its sentence, its remarks demon-\\nstrate that it was unpersuaded that Graham’s severe and es-\\ncalating financial troubles outweighed the aggravating cir-\\ncumstances of his six robberies. The court acknowledged Gra-\\nham’s financial challenges but responded that they did not of-\\nfer an excuse for armed robbery. Graham maintains that this\\nstatement alone was insufficient, but a “short explanation” for\\nrejecting a mitigating argument “will suffice where the con-\\ntext and record make clear the reasoning underlying the dis-\\ntrict court’s conclusion.” United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d\\n746, 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.\\n\\fNo. 18-2156 5\\n\\n338, 358–59 (2007)); see United States v. Castaldi, 743 F.3d 589,\\n595 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n Here, directly after mentioning Graham’s financial hard-\\nship, the court noted that the robberies were “not spur of the\\nmoment,” but “well-planned,” and involved conduct too\\negregious—“heinous” and “contrary to every moral pre-\\ncept”—to allow it to sentence him as leniently as his counsel\\nhad advocated.\\n As to the other mitigating factors Graham raised—his lack\\nof a criminal record, strong family ties, and drug use—he is\\ncorrect; the district court did not discuss them. And a court\\nthat fails to mention a ground of recognized legal merit likely\\nerrs. United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir.\\n2005). But the requirement that a court specifically address the\\ndefendant’s principal arguments “applies with less force”\\nwhere it receives written and oral sentencing arguments and\\nimposes a prison sentence “significantly below the applicable\\nguidelines range.” United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835, 837\\n(7th Cir. 2009). And a court’s statement that it has read the\\ndefendant’s submissions is often “enough to satisfy us that [it\\nhas] considered the argument and rejected it.” United States\\nv. Ramirez-Gutierrez, 503 F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir. 2007). That is\\nwhat happened here: the district court stated that it had re-\\nviewed Graham’s submissions and heard oral argument be-\\nfore explaining its below-guidelines sentence. Besides, the ob-\\nligation to address mitigating arguments decreases when a\\ndefendant presents “stock arguments … about his family sit-\\nuation and lack of criminal history,” as Graham did. United\\nStates v. Martinez, 520 F.3d 749, 753 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal\\nquotation marks and alterations omitted). These “are pre-\\ncisely the types of routine contentions that a sentencing court\\n\\f6 No. 18-2156\\n\\nis certainly free to reject without discussion.” Id. (internal quo-\\ntation marks omitted).\\n Graham also faults the district court for failing to address\\nhis extraordinary family circumstances as a father and pro-\\nvider for six children, one with medical issues. He points to\\ncases in which we remanded because the district court did not\\ndiscuss a defendant’s unusual family situation. True enough,\\na defendant’s family circumstances may be a legitimate basis\\nfor a below-guidelines sentence if the district court finds “that\\na defendant’s family ties and responsibilities … are so unu-\\nsual that they may be characterized as extraordinary.”\\nSchroeder, 536 F.3d at 755–56 (alteration in original and cita-\\ntions omitted). But Graham did not argue that his incarcera-\\ntion would leave his children in imminent danger or com-\\npletely without care—he argued that the financial strain on\\nthe family would only increase if he was incarcerated. See id.\\nat 750–51, 756 (defendant was primary caregiver for daughter\\nwhose significant medical problems made daycare unsafe\\nand defendant’s absence would make arranging care impos-\\nsible). Sadly, as we have observed: “Most families suffer emo-\\ntional and financial harm when a parent is imprisoned. Any\\nexperienced district judge has heard about those effects many\\ntimes and must recognize that those effects are consequences\\nof the parent’s crime, not the sentence imposed.” United States\\nv. Gary, 613 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2010). Graham’s contention\\nthat his large family would lose its main breadwinner and\\nthat his children would suffer from their father’s absence, was\\nnot extraordinary enough to warrant specific discussion.\\nSee Martinez, 520 F.3d at 753. Moreover, the focus of Graham’s\\nargument about his family was how the financial pressures of\\nproviding for them led Graham to commit these crimes, and\\nthe court addressed that mitigating argument.\\n\\fNo. 18-2156 7\\n\\n Next, Graham says that the court improperly focused on\\nthe costs of incarceration to the exclusion of his substantial\\nmitigating arguments, and therefore failed to adequately ex-\\nplain the sentence. But even with this incidental policy dis-\\ncussion, the district court did address Graham’s strongest\\nmitigating argument (financial hardship) and explained that\\nit was imposing 60 months for each armed robbery to account\\nfor the egregiousness of Graham’s criminal conduct. That is\\nenough “to allow for meaningful appellate review and to pro-\\nmote the perception of fair sentencing.” Gall v. United States,\\n552 U.S. 38, 590 (2007); see also United States v. Washington,\\n739 F.3d 1080, 1081 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n And the court’s discussion about incarceration costs, alt-\\nhough not explicitly mentioned in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), played\\ninto its “analysis of the cost benefit to society, [and] the benefit\\nto the inmate.” See United States v. DuPriest, 794 F.3d 881, 884\\n(7th Cir. 2015) (noting that same district judge’s commentary\\non prison costs was proper in the context of discussing\\n§ 3553(a) sentencing factors). In any event, the court reduced\\nthe sentence because of its views on the costs of incarceration,\\nso Graham arguably benefited from the court raising a miti-\\ngating argument it found more persuasive.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court reviewed the § 3553(a) factors, ad-\\ndressed Graham’s primary mitigation argument, and stressed\\nthe aggravating fact that Graham had committed six rob-\\nberies. This explanation allows for deferential appellate re-\\nview, and thus we affirm the judgment.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":683,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589049,"string":"4,589,049"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Ronnie L. Winsted, Jr. v. Nancy A. Berryhill"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2228"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before MANION, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BRENNAN, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 18‐2228 \\nRONNIE L. WINSTED, JR., \\n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \\n v. \\n\\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL, \\nActing Commissioner of Social Security, \\n Defendant‐Appellee. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court \\n for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. \\n No. 2:17‐cv‐00137‐MJD‐WTL — Mark J. Dinsmore, Magistrate Judge. \\n\\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 24, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before MANION, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. \\n BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Ronnie Winsted applied for disa‐\\nbility insurance benefits and supplemental security income \\nclaiming disability based on numerous conditions, including \\ndegenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, and anxiety. An \\nadministrative law judge denied benefits, finding that Win‐\\nsted could work with certain limitations. After the district \\n\\f2 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\ncourt upheld this denial, Winsted appealed, arguing the ALJ \\ndid not consider his difficulties with concentration, persis‐\\ntence, and pace. We agree—the ALJ did not adequately \\nexplain how the limitations he placed on Winsted’s residual \\nfunctional capacity accounted for the claimant’s mental diffi‐\\nculties, so we remand to the agency. \\n I. Background \\n Winsted was 42 years old when he applied for benefits, \\nasserting an onset date of October 2010. Although he initially \\nalleged he became disabled in 2005, two prior applications \\nalleging this onset date were denied and deemed administra‐\\ntively final. \\n \\n\\n Winsted suffers from multiple physical impairments, \\nmostly associated with his previous work in hard labor as an \\nindustrial truck driver, a highway maintenance worker, and \\nan operating engineer. MRIs taken in 2010 and 2011 showed \\nhe had focal, isolated degenerative disc disease. Other tests \\nrevealed osteoarthritis, mild carpal tunnel syndrome in his \\nhands, and cavus (high‐arched) foot that he treats with special \\nshoes. \\n \\n\\n Winsted complained of shortness of breath in May 2011 \\nand was diagnosed with acute bronchitis and chronic obstruc‐\\ntive pulmonary disease (“COPD”). Although he wheezed at \\ntimes, he often responded well to medication. Throughout the \\nrelevant period, Winsted sometimes complained of wheez‐\\ning, but often his lungs were clear. A pulmonary function test \\nin 2013, however, showed Winsted had moderate obstructive \\nlung disease and possibly restrictive lung disease. \\n \\n\\n Winsted began seeing an internist, Dr. Nedu Gopala, for \\nback pain in August 2013. The doctor prescribed medication \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 3\\n\\nfor Winsted’s breathing, chest pain, back pain, and anxiety. \\nAt appointments throughout 2013 and into March 2015, \\nWinsted’s range of motion in his arms and legs alternated \\nfrom full, to limited. He maintained a chronic cough, mild \\nshortness of breath, and wheezing, though a 2014 pulmonary \\nfunction test did not show any evidence of lung obstruction. \\n \\n\\n To address stress‐related heart issues, Winsted sought \\nmental‐health treatment in 2012. A therapist diagnosed him \\nwith a panic disorder, post‐traumatic stress disorder, and \\nmajor depressive disorder. Winsted had a guarded attitude, \\n“very little insight,” “below average” intellect, and was \\nassigned a Global Assessment of Function (“GAF”) of 51, \\nindicating he had moderate difficulty in social and occupa‐\\ntional functioning.1 AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, DIAGNOSTIC AND \\nSTATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS 32 (4th ed. 1994). \\nIn his therapy appointments, Winsted regularly complained \\nabout altercations with neighbors. \\n \\n\\n Later that year, Winsted sought treatment from a psychia‐\\ntrist, who diagnosed major depressive disorder and assigned \\na GAF of 45, indicating a serious impairment in social or \\noccupational functioning. AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, supra. The \\npsychiatrist reported that Winsted was tense, anxious, “very \\nrestless,” and moderately depressed. He prescribed medica‐\\ntion for anxiety and depression and continued to treat Win‐\\nsted. \\n \\n\\n \\n1 The GAF, which assesses an “individual’s overall level of functioning,” \\n\\nCraft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 676 n.7 (7th Cir. 2008), is no longer widely \\nused by psychiatrists and psychologists, but it was sometimes referred to \\nin social security disability hearings during Winsted’s proceedings. \\nSee Price v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 836, 839 (7th Cir. 2015). \\n\\f4 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n Between September 2013 and February 2015, Winsted’s \\nmental health fluctuated. In September 2013, Winsted’s \\npsychiatrist reported that his affect was appropriate, his \\nmood was not depressed, and “on the whole [he was] doing \\nbetter.” But two months later, Winsted’s affect was anxious, \\nhis mood was depressed, he was “feeling more irritable, \\nanxious, and restless,” and he suffered panic attacks. At a \\ntherapy session in July 2014, a therapist reported Winsted’s \\n“symptoms of depression and worry impair overall function‐\\ning,” and in August and November 2014, he was “mildly \\ndepressed.” But in February 2015, Winsted presented with an \\nappropriate affect and a not‐depressed mood. The same was \\ntrue in April 2015, though Winsted reported he sometimes felt \\n“tense and anxious” and stress continued to cause him to \\n“become overwhelmed.” \\n \\n\\n The disability application also triggered an examination in \\n2013 from an agency psychologist, Dr. Steven Marlow, who \\ndiagnosed Winsted with major depressive disorder, a gener‐\\nalized anxiety disorder, and a panic disorder. Specifically, he \\nreported Winsted “has a[n] avoidant, hostile, and easily \\ndistracted attitude.” Dr. Marlow determined Winsted had \\nbelow average levels of mental control, understanding and \\nmemory, and concentration; poor levels of persistence; and he \\ndid not do well in social situations. \\n \\n\\n A state‐agency physician, Dr. George Siderys, also exam‐\\nined Winsted in 2013 and opined he had a mild functional \\nimpairment. This included: “mild decrease in range of mo‐\\ntion,” pain that would be “expected to cause him problems \\nwith prolonged standing, walking, or heavy lifting,” and a \\nhistory of heart difficulties that would cause him to “wear out \\nif he participated in prolonged walking or lifting.” \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 5\\n\\n \\n\\n In connection with Winsted’s disability claim, treating \\nphysician Dr. Gopala completed a physical residual func‐\\ntional capacity (“RFC”) questionnaire in early 2015 and \\nreported Winsted suffered from hypertension, COPD, and \\nback pain, and described Winsted’s prognosis for back pain \\nas “poor.” He determined Winsted had a “painful range of \\nmovement” and was incapable of performing even “low \\nstress” work. Dr. Gopala also wrote that Winsted’s symptoms \\nwould affect his attention and concentration frequently; he \\ncould walk only about one block; and he could sit or stand for \\nonly 15 minutes at a time. \\n \\n\\n In April 2015, treating therapist Jessica Nevill filled out a \\nmental RFC questionnaire. She opined Winsted had marked \\nimpairments in his abilities to: relate to other people, respond \\nto supervision, respond to work pressures, and respond \\nappropriately to changes in the work setting. She wrote \\nWinsted would miss work three to four days per month \\nbecause of his impairments. \\n \\n\\n After the Social Security Administration denied Winsted’s \\napplication, he had a hearing before an ALJ. Winsted testified \\nhe used an inhaler twice a day, slept with a CPAP machine, \\nused a nebulizer for breathing every three months, and con‐\\ntinued to smoke a half‐a‐pack of cigarettes per day. He said \\nhe could not grip a two‐liter bottle with his left hand. Due to \\nthe pain in his knees and feet, he said he could stand for only \\na few minutes and, even then, he could not stand still. He also \\nsaid he could walk only a few blocks before needing to stop \\nand catch his breath, and experienced chest pain three to four \\ntimes per week. He noted he has trouble getting along with \\npeople and does not like to be around groups. \\n \\n\\f6 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n After Winsted testified, the ALJ asked the vocational \\nexpert (“VE”) three hypothetical questions. First, the ALJ \\nasked the VE to consider an individual of the same age, \\neducation, and work experience as Winsted. He continued: \\n \\n\\n This hypothetical individual would be capable \\n of light work, but four hours maximum stand‐\\n ing and walking in an eight hour day, only \\n occasional climbing of ramps, and stairs, but no \\n ropes, ladders, or scaffolds, only occasional bal‐\\n ancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and \\n crawling. Frequent, but not constant handling \\n and fingering bilaterally. This individual would \\n need to avoid concentrated exposure to breath‐\\n ing irritants, such as fumes, orders, dust, and \\n gasses, as well as wet, slippery surfaces, and \\n unprotected heights and would further be \\n limited to only simply reaching, repetitive tasks, \\n with few workplace changes, no team work, \\n and no interactions with the public. \\n \\n\\nThe expert determined such a person could work as a bench \\nassembler, electronics worker, or production assembler. In \\nthe second hypothetical, the ALJ asked about an individual \\nwith the same limitations as in the first hypothetical, but who \\nalso “due to impair‐related symptoms, such as the need to lay \\ndown during the day to relieve pain would be off task 20% of \\nthe work day.” The VE replied that such an individual could \\nnot sustain employment. Finally, the ALJ asked about a per‐\\nson with all the same limitations as provided in the first hy‐\\npothetical, “but due to the frequency of bad days versus good \\ndays, this individual would have two unscheduled absences \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 7\\n\\nper month.” Again, the VE answered, “there would be no \\njobs.” \\n \\n\\n The ALJ conducted the Administration’s 5‐step analysis, \\nsee 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), § 416.920(a), and found Winsted \\nnot disabled. At Step 1 the ALJ determined Winsted had not \\nengaged in substantial gainful activity since October 22, 2010. \\nAt Step 2 the ALJ identified Winsted’s severe impairments as \\ndegenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, bilateral carpal \\ntunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis in his left knee, bilateral \\ncavus foot, COPD, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, an affec‐\\ntive disorder, and an anxiety disorder. At Step 3 the ALJ \\nacknowledged Winsted had moderate difficulty with social \\nfunctioning and concentration, persistence, and pace because \\nof his mental‐health issues, but concluded these severe \\nimpairments did not meet a listing for presumptive disability. \\nBetween Steps 3 and 4 the ALJ determined Winsted had the \\nrequisite RFC to perform light work with certain limitations \\n(as provided in the first hypothetical, and including being \\nlimited to “simple, routine, repetitive tasks with few work‐\\nplace changes, no team work, and no interaction with the pub‐\\nlic”) but his limitations precluded him from performing his \\npast relevant work (Step 4). At Step 5 the ALJ concluded, \\nbased on Winsted’s age, education, work experience, and \\nRFC, that he was capable of successfully changing to other \\nwork. \\n \\n\\n Winsted appealed to the agency’s Appeals Council, which \\ndenied review. He then sought judicial review, and the par‐\\nties agreed to have a magistrate judge adjudicate this case. \\nSee 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). That judge upheld the ALJ’s decision. \\n\\f8 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n II. Analysis \\n \\n\\n A. ALJ’s Evaluation of Winsted’s Limitations in Concen‐\\n tration, Persistence, and Pace \\n \\n\\n Winsted argues neither the ALJ’s RFC nor his first hypo‐\\nthetical question properly accounted for the finding that he \\nhas “moderate” difficulties with concentration, persistence, \\nand pace. He submits the ALJ’s proposed limitations—that \\nWinsted perform only “simple, routine, repetitive tasks with \\nfew workplace changes”—fail to address his concentra‐\\ntion‐functioning deficits because “both the hypothetical \\nposed to the VE and the ALJ’s RFC assessment must incorpo‐\\nrate all of the claimant’s limitations supported by the medical \\nrecord.” Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 2015). \\n \\n\\n Winsted’s argument here is correct. Again and again, we \\nhave said that when an ALJ finds there are documented \\nlimitations of concentration, persistence, and pace, the hypo‐\\nthetical question presented to the VE must account for these \\nlimitations. Moreno v. Berryhill, 882 F.3d 722, 730 (7th Cir. \\n2018); Varga, 794 F.3d at 814‐15; OʹConnor‐Spinner v. Astrue, \\n627 F.3d 614, 620 (7th Cir. 2010); Stewart v. Astrue, 561 F.3d \\n679, 684 (7th Cir. 2009); Kasarsky v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 539, 544 \\n(7th Cir. 2003); see also Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1003 \\n(7th Cir. 2004). We have also made clear that in most cases \\n“employing terms like ‘simple, repetitive tasks on their own \\nwill not necessarily exclude from the VE’s consideration those \\npositions that present significant problems of concentration, \\npersistence and pace,” and thus, alone, are insufficient to pre‐\\nsent the claimant’s limitations in this area. OʹConnor‐Spinner, \\n627 F.3d at 620; see Moreno, 882 F.3d at 730. Here, at Step 3 the \\nALJ found Winsted’s moderate difficulties with \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 9\\n\\nconcentration, persistence, and pace could cause problems \\nwith concentration and following written instructions, as well \\nas stress with changes in his routine. And Winsted’s psychia‐\\ntrist and therapist both remarked that stress caused Winsted \\nto “become overwhelmed” and his depression impaired his \\noverall functioning. \\n \\n\\n But the first hypothetical the ALJ posed to the VE did not \\ndirect the expert to consider problems with concentration, \\npersistence, and pace, which is the hypothetical the ALJ relied \\non for the RFC. Though particular words need not be \\nincanted, we cannot look at the absence of the phrase “moder‐\\nate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and pace” and \\nfeel confident this limitation was properly incorporated in the \\nRFC and in the hypothetical question. See OʹConnor‐Spinner, \\n627 F.3d at 619. The ALJ may have thought, as the agency \\nproposes, he was addressing Winsted’s concentration diffi‐\\nculties by including limitations that would minimize social \\ninteraction. But that restriction could just have likely been \\nmeant to account for Winsted’s moderate difficulty with \\nsocial functioning—the ALJ acknowledged Winsted experi‐\\nences anxiety, panic attacks, and irritability when he is around \\npeople. Nothing in the hypothetical question and the RFC, \\nhowever, accounted for the ALJ’s discussion of how \\nWinsted’s low GAF scores reflect serious mental‐health \\nsymptoms or his mention that Winsted often “appeared tense, \\nanxious, and/or restless” without interacting with other people. \\nAdditionally, where a claimant’s limitations are stress‐\\nrelated, as Winsted’s appear to be, the hypothetical question \\nshould account for the level of stress a claimant can handle. \\nSee Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816, 820, 823 (7th Cir. 2007); \\nJohansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283, 285, 288–89 (7th Cir. 2002). \\n\\f10 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\nBut there was no restriction related to stress in the RFC or \\nhypothetical question. \\n \\n\\n Notably, it appears the ALJ disregarded testimony from \\nthe VE about a person with limitations in concentration, per‐\\nsistence, and pace. The ALJ asked two additional hypothetical \\nquestions of the VE about an individual who would either be \\noff task 20% of the workday or would have two unscheduled \\nabsences per month—presumably assuming someone with \\n“moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and \\npace.” The VE responded that neither individual could \\nsustain employment. But these responses are not reflected in \\nthe ALJ’s decision, which means it cannot stand. \\n \\n\\n B. ALJ’s Evaluation of the Medical Opinion Evidence \\n \\n\\n Winsted also challenges the evidentiary weight the ALJ \\ngave to four medical opinions, two from treating medical \\nprofessionals (Dr. Gopala and Ms. Nevill) and two from state \\nagency doctors (examining psychologist Dr. Marlow and \\nconsultative examiner Dr. Siderys). \\n \\n\\n Before reaching the merits of this argument, we must \\naddress the agency’s contention that Winsted waived it. The \\nagency is not correct on this; Winsted never “knowingly and \\nintelligently relinquished” his claim, Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. \\n463, 470 n.4 (2012). That he developed the argument poorly \\nmeans at most he forfeited it. Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, \\n254 (7th Cir. 2016). \\n \\n\\n Forfeited or not, this argument fails. In the decision, the \\nALJ adequately articulated why he gave each opinion the \\nweight he did, entitling his decision, in this respect, to our \\ndeference. See Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413, 416 (7th Cir. \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 11\\n\\n2008). Starting with Dr. Gopala, the ALJ appropriately ques‐\\ntioned the doctor’s conclusion—that Winsted had a painful \\nrange of motion that made him incapable of engaging in \\n“low‐stress” work—in light of other record evidence. This \\nincluded Dr. Gopala’s own notes, which showed Winsted \\nregularly had a full range of motion, no gross sensory or \\nmotor deficits, fine motor skills within normal limits, and \\nlungs that “have often been clear.” And though treating phy‐\\nsician’s opinions, like Dr. Gopala’s, are usually entitled to \\ncontrolling weight, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96‐2p,2 \\nan ALJ may discredit the opinion if it is inconsistent with the \\nrecord. See Loveless v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir. 2016); \\nCampbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010); 20 C.F.R. \\n§ 404.1527(c)(2). \\n \\n\\n Next, Winsted argues the ALJ erred in giving little eviden‐\\ntiary weight to Ms. Nevill’s mental RFC assessment. But the \\nALJ wrote he discounted her report because she was a \\nnon‐medical professional, and thus not an “acceptable medi‐\\ncal source” See 20 CFR § 404.1513(a), § 416.913(a). Also, her \\nfindings were “based solely on [Winsted’s] subjective \\ncomplaints”—an appropriate reason for an ALJ to discount \\nan opinion, see Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. \\n2008). Additionally, he found Ms. Nevill’s report, like Dr. Go‐\\npala’s, was inconsistent with Winsted’s medical‐health record \\nas a whole. See Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2012) \\n(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)‐(3)). \\n \\n\\n\\n\\n \\n2 The treating‐physician rule, which was eliminated for claims filed after \\n\\nMarch 27, 2017, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (2017), still applies to Winsted’s \\nearlier filed claim, see Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018); \\n20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. \\n\\f12 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n Finally, Winsted claims the ALJ gave short shrift to the \\ntwo state examiners’ 2013 opinions, asserting the ALJ erred in \\ndiscussing the state psychologist’s evaluation “in one \\nsentence” and the state physician’s opinion in a footnote. But \\nas the agency points out, the ALJ discussed these opinions \\nthroughout the decision. The ALJ cited the state psycholo‐\\ngist’s findings when discussing Winsted’s mental‐health \\ndiagnosis, and referred repeatedly to the state physician’s \\nopinion throughout his discussion of Winsted’s gait, grip \\nstrength, and scattered wheezing. The court applies a \\ncommon‐sense reading to the entirety of an ALJ’s decision. \\nRice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363, 369 (7th Cir. 2004); Shramek \\nv. Apfel, 226 F.3d 809, 811 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, the ALJ ade‐\\nquately articulated his reasons for discounting these two \\nopinions—both reports were based on only one evaluation \\nand largely reflected Winsted’s subjective reporting. See Elder, \\n529 F.3d at 416; Rice, 384 F.3d at 371 (ALJs should rely on \\nmedical opinions “based on objective observations,” not \\n“subjective complaints.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(i) (ALJs \\nshould consider “frequency of examination” in weight it \\nassigns opinion). \\n \\n\\n III. Conclusion \\n \\n\\n Because the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the vocational \\nexaminer and the residual function capacity did not capture \\none of Winsted’s most significant problems—his concentra‐\\ntion‐functioning deficits—we conclude further proceedings \\nare necessary on that issue only. Therefore, we REVERSE the \\ndistrict court judgment and REMAND this case to the Social \\nSecurity Administration.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4366302/\", \"author_raw\": \"BRENNAN, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589049/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Ronnie L. Winsted, Jr. v. Nancy A. Berryhill\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 18‐2228 \nRONNIE L. WINSTED, JR., \n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \n v. \n\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL, \nActing Commissioner of Social Security, \n Defendant‐Appellee. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court \n for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. \n No. 2:17‐cv‐00137‐MJD‐WTL — Mark J. Dinsmore, Magistrate Judge. \n\n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED JANUARY 24, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before MANION, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. \n BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Ronnie Winsted applied for disa‐\nbility insurance benefits and supplemental security income \nclaiming disability based on numerous conditions, including \ndegenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, and anxiety. An \nadministrative law judge denied benefits, finding that Win‐\nsted could work with certain limitations. After the district \n\f2 No. 18‐2228 \n\ncourt upheld this denial, Winsted appealed, arguing the ALJ \ndid not consider his difficulties with concentration, persis‐\ntence, and pace. We agree—the ALJ did not adequately \nexplain how the limitations he placed on Winsted’s residual \nfunctional capacity accounted for the claimant’s mental diffi‐\nculties, so we remand to the agency. \n I. Background \n Winsted was 42 years old when he applied for benefits, \nasserting an onset date of October 2010. Although he initially \nalleged he became disabled in 2005, two prior applications \nalleging this onset date were denied and deemed administra‐\ntively final. \n \n\n Winsted suffers from multiple physical impairments, \nmostly associated with his previous work in hard labor as an \nindustrial truck driver, a highway maintenance worker, and \nan operating engineer. MRIs taken in 2010 and 2011 showed \nhe had focal, isolated degenerative disc disease. Other tests \nrevealed osteoarthritis, mild carpal tunnel syndrome in his \nhands, and cavus (high‐arched) foot that he treats with special \nshoes. \n \n\n Winsted complained of shortness of breath in May 2011 \nand was diagnosed with acute bronchitis and chronic obstruc‐\ntive pulmonary disease (“COPD”). Although he wheezed at \ntimes, he often responded well to medication. Throughout the \nrelevant period, Winsted sometimes complained of wheez‐\ning, but often his lungs were clear. A pulmonary function test \nin 2013, however, showed Winsted had moderate obstructive \nlung disease and possibly restrictive lung disease. \n \n\n Winsted began seeing an internist, Dr. Nedu Gopala, for \nback pain in August 2013. The doctor prescribed medication \n\fNo. 18‐2228 3\n\nfor Winsted’s breathing, chest pain, back pain, and anxiety. \nAt appointments throughout 2013 and into March 2015, \nWinsted’s range of motion in his arms and legs alternated \nfrom full, to limited. He maintained a chronic cough, mild \nshortness of breath, and wheezing, though a 2014 pulmonary \nfunction test did not show any evidence of lung obstruction. \n \n\n To address stress‐related heart issues, Winsted sought \nmental‐health treatment in 2012. A therapist diagnosed him \nwith a panic disorder, post‐traumatic stress disorder, and \nmajor depressive disorder. Winsted had a guarded attitude, \n“very little insight,” “below average” intellect, and was \nassigned a Global Assessment of Function (“GAF”) of 51, \nindicating he had moderate difficulty in social and occupa‐\ntional functioning.1 AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, DIAGNOSTIC AND \nSTATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS 32 (4th ed. 1994). \nIn his therapy appointments, Winsted regularly complained \nabout altercations with neighbors. \n \n\n Later that year, Winsted sought treatment from a psychia‐\ntrist, who diagnosed major depressive disorder and assigned \na GAF of 45, indicating a serious impairment in social or \noccupational functioning. AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, supra. The \npsychiatrist reported that Winsted was tense, anxious, “very \nrestless,” and moderately depressed. He prescribed medica‐\ntion for anxiety and depression and continued to treat Win‐\nsted. \n \n\n \n1 The GAF, which assesses an “individual’s overall level of functioning,” \n\nCraft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 676 n.7 (7th Cir. 2008), is no longer widely \nused by psychiatrists and psychologists, but it was sometimes referred to \nin social security disability hearings during Winsted’s proceedings. \nSee Price v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 836, 839 (7th Cir. 2015). \n\f4 No. 18‐2228 \n\n Between September 2013 and February 2015, Winsted’s \nmental health fluctuated. In September 2013, Winsted’s \npsychiatrist reported that his affect was appropriate, his \nmood was not depressed, and “on the whole [he was] doing \nbetter.” But two months later, Winsted’s affect was anxious, \nhis mood was depressed, he was “feeling more irritable, \nanxious, and restless,” and he suffered panic attacks. At a \ntherapy session in July 2014, a therapist reported Winsted’s \n“symptoms of depression and worry impair overall function‐\ning,” and in August and November 2014, he was “mildly \ndepressed.” But in February 2015, Winsted presented with an \nappropriate affect and a not‐depressed mood. The same was \ntrue in April 2015, though Winsted reported he sometimes felt \n“tense and anxious” and stress continued to cause him to \n“become overwhelmed.” \n \n\n The disability application also triggered an examination in \n2013 from an agency psychologist, Dr. Steven Marlow, who \ndiagnosed Winsted with major depressive disorder, a gener‐\nalized anxiety disorder, and a panic disorder. Specifically, he \nreported Winsted “has a[n] avoidant, hostile, and easily \ndistracted attitude.” Dr. Marlow determined Winsted had \nbelow average levels of mental control, understanding and \nmemory, and concentration; poor levels of persistence; and he \ndid not do well in social situations. \n \n\n A state‐agency physician, Dr. George Siderys, also exam‐\nined Winsted in 2013 and opined he had a mild functional \nimpairment. This included: “mild decrease in range of mo‐\ntion,” pain that would be “expected to cause him problems \nwith prolonged standing, walking, or heavy lifting,” and a \nhistory of heart difficulties that would cause him to “wear out \nif he participated in prolonged walking or lifting.” \n\fNo. 18‐2228 5\n\n \n\n In connection with Winsted’s disability claim, treating \nphysician Dr. Gopala completed a physical residual func‐\ntional capacity (“RFC”) questionnaire in early 2015 and \nreported Winsted suffered from hypertension, COPD, and \nback pain, and described Winsted’s prognosis for back pain \nas “poor.” He determined Winsted had a “painful range of \nmovement” and was incapable of performing even “low \nstress” work. Dr. Gopala also wrote that Winsted’s symptoms \nwould affect his attention and concentration frequently; he \ncould walk only about one block; and he could sit or stand for \nonly 15 minutes at a time. \n \n\n In April 2015, treating therapist Jessica Nevill filled out a \nmental RFC questionnaire. She opined Winsted had marked \nimpairments in his abilities to: relate to other people, respond \nto supervision, respond to work pressures, and respond \nappropriately to changes in the work setting. She wrote \nWinsted would miss work three to four days per month \nbecause of his impairments. \n \n\n After the Social Security Administration denied Winsted’s \napplication, he had a hearing before an ALJ. Winsted testified \nhe used an inhaler twice a day, slept with a CPAP machine, \nused a nebulizer for breathing every three months, and con‐\ntinued to smoke a half‐a‐pack of cigarettes per day. He said \nhe could not grip a two‐liter bottle with his left hand. Due to \nthe pain in his knees and feet, he said he could stand for only \na few minutes and, even then, he could not stand still. He also \nsaid he could walk only a few blocks before needing to stop \nand catch his breath, and experienced chest pain three to four \ntimes per week. He noted he has trouble getting along with \npeople and does not like to be around groups. \n \n\f6 No. 18‐2228 \n\n After Winsted testified, the ALJ asked the vocational \nexpert (“VE”) three hypothetical questions. First, the ALJ \nasked the VE to consider an individual of the same age, \neducation, and work experience as Winsted. He continued: \n \n\n This hypothetical individual would be capable \n of light work, but four hours maximum stand‐\n ing and walking in an eight hour day, only \n occasional climbing of ramps, and stairs, but no \n ropes, ladders, or scaffolds, only occasional bal‐\n ancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and \n crawling. Frequent, but not constant handling \n and fingering bilaterally. This individual would \n need to avoid concentrated exposure to breath‐\n ing irritants, such as fumes, orders, dust, and \n gasses, as well as wet, slippery surfaces, and \n unprotected heights and would further be \n limited to only simply reaching, repetitive tasks, \n with few workplace changes, no team work, \n and no interactions with the public. \n \n\nThe expert determined such a person could work as a bench \nassembler, electronics worker, or production assembler. In \nthe second hypothetical, the ALJ asked about an individual \nwith the same limitations as in the first hypothetical, but who \nalso “due to impair‐related symptoms, such as the need to lay \ndown during the day to relieve pain would be off task 20% of \nthe work day.” The VE replied that such an individual could \nnot sustain employment. Finally, the ALJ asked about a per‐\nson with all the same limitations as provided in the first hy‐\npothetical, “but due to the frequency of bad days versus good \ndays, this individual would have two unscheduled absences \n\fNo. 18‐2228 7\n\nper month.” Again, the VE answered, “there would be no \njobs.” \n \n\n The ALJ conducted the Administration’s 5‐step analysis, \nsee 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), § 416.920(a), and found Winsted \nnot disabled. At Step 1 the ALJ determined Winsted had not \nengaged in substantial gainful activity since October 22, 2010. \nAt Step 2 the ALJ identified Winsted’s severe impairments as \ndegenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, bilateral carpal \ntunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis in his left knee, bilateral \ncavus foot, COPD, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, an affec‐\ntive disorder, and an anxiety disorder. At Step 3 the ALJ \nacknowledged Winsted had moderate difficulty with social \nfunctioning and concentration, persistence, and pace because \nof his mental‐health issues, but concluded these severe \nimpairments did not meet a listing for presumptive disability. \nBetween Steps 3 and 4 the ALJ determined Winsted had the \nrequisite RFC to perform light work with certain limitations \n(as provided in the first hypothetical, and including being \nlimited to “simple, routine, repetitive tasks with few work‐\nplace changes, no team work, and no interaction with the pub‐\nlic”) but his limitations precluded him from performing his \npast relevant work (Step 4). At Step 5 the ALJ concluded, \nbased on Winsted’s age, education, work experience, and \nRFC, that he was capable of successfully changing to other \nwork. \n \n\n Winsted appealed to the agency’s Appeals Council, which \ndenied review. He then sought judicial review, and the par‐\nties agreed to have a magistrate judge adjudicate this case. \nSee 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). That judge upheld the ALJ’s decision. \n\f8 No. 18‐2228 \n\n II. Analysis \n \n\n A. ALJ’s Evaluation of Winsted’s Limitations in Concen‐\n tration, Persistence, and Pace \n \n\n Winsted argues neither the ALJ’s RFC nor his first hypo‐\nthetical question properly accounted for the finding that he \nhas “moderate” difficulties with concentration, persistence, \nand pace. He submits the ALJ’s proposed limitations—that \nWinsted perform only “simple, routine, repetitive tasks with \nfew workplace changes”—fail to address his concentra‐\ntion‐functioning deficits because “both the hypothetical \nposed to the VE and the ALJ’s RFC assessment must incorpo‐\nrate all of the claimant’s limitations supported by the medical \nrecord.” Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 2015). \n \n\n Winsted’s argument here is correct. Again and again, we \nhave said that when an ALJ finds there are documented \nlimitations of concentration, persistence, and pace, the hypo‐\nthetical question presented to the VE must account for these \nlimitations. Moreno v. Berryhill, 882 F.3d 722, 730 (7th Cir. \n2018); Varga, 794 F.3d at 814‐15; OʹConnor‐Spinner v. Astrue, \n627 F.3d 614, 620 (7th Cir. 2010); Stewart v. Astrue, 561 F.3d \n679, 684 (7th Cir. 2009); Kasarsky v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 539, 544 \n(7th Cir. 2003); see also Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1003 \n(7th Cir. 2004). We have also made clear that in most cases \n“employing terms like ‘simple, repetitive tasks on their own \nwill not necessarily exclude from the VE’s consideration those \npositions that present significant problems of concentration, \npersistence and pace,” and thus, alone, are insufficient to pre‐\nsent the claimant’s limitations in this area. OʹConnor‐Spinner, \n627 F.3d at 620; see Moreno, 882 F.3d at 730. Here, at Step 3 the \nALJ found Winsted’s moderate difficulties with \n\fNo. 18‐2228 9\n\nconcentration, persistence, and pace could cause problems \nwith concentration and following written instructions, as well \nas stress with changes in his routine. And Winsted’s psychia‐\ntrist and therapist both remarked that stress caused Winsted \nto “become overwhelmed” and his depression impaired his \noverall functioning. \n \n\n But the first hypothetical the ALJ posed to the VE did not \ndirect the expert to consider problems with concentration, \npersistence, and pace, which is the hypothetical the ALJ relied \non for the RFC. Though particular words need not be \nincanted, we cannot look at the absence of the phrase “moder‐\nate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and pace” and \nfeel confident this limitation was properly incorporated in the \nRFC and in the hypothetical question. See OʹConnor‐Spinner, \n627 F.3d at 619. The ALJ may have thought, as the agency \nproposes, he was addressing Winsted’s concentration diffi‐\nculties by including limitations that would minimize social \ninteraction. But that restriction could just have likely been \nmeant to account for Winsted’s moderate difficulty with \nsocial functioning—the ALJ acknowledged Winsted experi‐\nences anxiety, panic attacks, and irritability when he is around \npeople. Nothing in the hypothetical question and the RFC, \nhowever, accounted for the ALJ’s discussion of how \nWinsted’s low GAF scores reflect serious mental‐health \nsymptoms or his mention that Winsted often “appeared tense, \nanxious, and/or restless” without interacting with other people. \nAdditionally, where a claimant’s limitations are stress‐\nrelated, as Winsted’s appear to be, the hypothetical question \nshould account for the level of stress a claimant can handle. \nSee Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816, 820, 823 (7th Cir. 2007); \nJohansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283, 285, 288–89 (7th Cir. 2002). \n\f10 No. 18‐2228 \n\nBut there was no restriction related to stress in the RFC or \nhypothetical question. \n \n\n Notably, it appears the ALJ disregarded testimony from \nthe VE about a person with limitations in concentration, per‐\nsistence, and pace. The ALJ asked two additional hypothetical \nquestions of the VE about an individual who would either be \noff task 20% of the workday or would have two unscheduled \nabsences per month—presumably assuming someone with \n“moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and \npace.” The VE responded that neither individual could \nsustain employment. But these responses are not reflected in \nthe ALJ’s decision, which means it cannot stand. \n \n\n B. ALJ’s Evaluation of the Medical Opinion Evidence \n \n\n Winsted also challenges the evidentiary weight the ALJ \ngave to four medical opinions, two from treating medical \nprofessionals (Dr. Gopala and Ms. Nevill) and two from state \nagency doctors (examining psychologist Dr. Marlow and \nconsultative examiner Dr. Siderys). \n \n\n Before reaching the merits of this argument, we must \naddress the agency’s contention that Winsted waived it. The \nagency is not correct on this; Winsted never “knowingly and \nintelligently relinquished” his claim, Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. \n463, 470 n.4 (2012). That he developed the argument poorly \nmeans at most he forfeited it. Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, \n254 (7th Cir. 2016). \n \n\n Forfeited or not, this argument fails. In the decision, the \nALJ adequately articulated why he gave each opinion the \nweight he did, entitling his decision, in this respect, to our \ndeference. See Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413, 416 (7th Cir. \n\fNo. 18‐2228 11\n\n2008). Starting with Dr. Gopala, the ALJ appropriately ques‐\ntioned the doctor’s conclusion—that Winsted had a painful \nrange of motion that made him incapable of engaging in \n“low‐stress” work—in light of other record evidence. This \nincluded Dr. Gopala’s own notes, which showed Winsted \nregularly had a full range of motion, no gross sensory or \nmotor deficits, fine motor skills within normal limits, and \nlungs that “have often been clear.” And though treating phy‐\nsician’s opinions, like Dr. Gopala’s, are usually entitled to \ncontrolling weight, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96‐2p,2 \nan ALJ may discredit the opinion if it is inconsistent with the \nrecord. See Loveless v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir. 2016); \nCampbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010); 20 C.F.R. \n§ 404.1527(c)(2). \n \n\n Next, Winsted argues the ALJ erred in giving little eviden‐\ntiary weight to Ms. Nevill’s mental RFC assessment. But the \nALJ wrote he discounted her report because she was a \nnon‐medical professional, and thus not an “acceptable medi‐\ncal source” See 20 CFR § 404.1513(a), § 416.913(a). Also, her \nfindings were “based solely on [Winsted’s] subjective \ncomplaints”—an appropriate reason for an ALJ to discount \nan opinion, see Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. \n2008). Additionally, he found Ms. Nevill’s report, like Dr. Go‐\npala’s, was inconsistent with Winsted’s medical‐health record \nas a whole. See Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2012) \n(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)‐(3)). \n \n\n\n\n \n2 The treating‐physician rule, which was eliminated for claims filed after \n\nMarch 27, 2017, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (2017), still applies to Winsted’s \nearlier filed claim, see Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018); \n20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. \n\f12 No. 18‐2228 \n\n Finally, Winsted claims the ALJ gave short shrift to the \ntwo state examiners’ 2013 opinions, asserting the ALJ erred in \ndiscussing the state psychologist’s evaluation “in one \nsentence” and the state physician’s opinion in a footnote. But \nas the agency points out, the ALJ discussed these opinions \nthroughout the decision. The ALJ cited the state psycholo‐\ngist’s findings when discussing Winsted’s mental‐health \ndiagnosis, and referred repeatedly to the state physician’s \nopinion throughout his discussion of Winsted’s gait, grip \nstrength, and scattered wheezing. The court applies a \ncommon‐sense reading to the entirety of an ALJ’s decision. \nRice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363, 369 (7th Cir. 2004); Shramek \nv. Apfel, 226 F.3d 809, 811 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, the ALJ ade‐\nquately articulated his reasons for discounting these two \nopinions—both reports were based on only one evaluation \nand largely reflected Winsted’s subjective reporting. See Elder, \n529 F.3d at 416; Rice, 384 F.3d at 371 (ALJs should rely on \nmedical opinions “based on objective observations,” not \n“subjective complaints.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(i) (ALJs \nshould consider “frequency of examination” in weight it \nassigns opinion). \n \n\n III. Conclusion \n \n\n Because the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the vocational \nexaminer and the residual function capacity did not capture \none of Winsted’s most significant problems—his concentra‐\ntion‐functioning deficits—we conclude further proceedings \nare necessary on that issue only. Therefore, we REVERSE the \ndistrict court judgment and REMAND this case to the Social \nSecurity Administration.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Ronnie L. Winsted, Jr. v. Nancy A. Berryhill\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 18‐2228 \\nRONNIE L. WINSTED, JR., \\n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \\n v. \\n\\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL, \\nActing Commissioner of Social Security, \\n Defendant‐Appellee. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court \\n for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. \\n No. 2:17‐cv‐00137‐MJD‐WTL — Mark J. Dinsmore, Magistrate Judge. \\n\\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 24, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before MANION, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. \\n BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Ronnie Winsted applied for disa‐\\nbility insurance benefits and supplemental security income \\nclaiming disability based on numerous conditions, including \\ndegenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, and anxiety. An \\nadministrative law judge denied benefits, finding that Win‐\\nsted could work with certain limitations. After the district \\n\\f2 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\ncourt upheld this denial, Winsted appealed, arguing the ALJ \\ndid not consider his difficulties with concentration, persis‐\\ntence, and pace. We agree—the ALJ did not adequately \\nexplain how the limitations he placed on Winsted’s residual \\nfunctional capacity accounted for the claimant’s mental diffi‐\\nculties, so we remand to the agency. \\n I. Background \\n Winsted was 42 years old when he applied for benefits, \\nasserting an onset date of October 2010. Although he initially \\nalleged he became disabled in 2005, two prior applications \\nalleging this onset date were denied and deemed administra‐\\ntively final. \\n \\n\\n Winsted suffers from multiple physical impairments, \\nmostly associated with his previous work in hard labor as an \\nindustrial truck driver, a highway maintenance worker, and \\nan operating engineer. MRIs taken in 2010 and 2011 showed \\nhe had focal, isolated degenerative disc disease. Other tests \\nrevealed osteoarthritis, mild carpal tunnel syndrome in his \\nhands, and cavus (high‐arched) foot that he treats with special \\nshoes. \\n \\n\\n Winsted complained of shortness of breath in May 2011 \\nand was diagnosed with acute bronchitis and chronic obstruc‐\\ntive pulmonary disease (“COPD”). Although he wheezed at \\ntimes, he often responded well to medication. Throughout the \\nrelevant period, Winsted sometimes complained of wheez‐\\ning, but often his lungs were clear. A pulmonary function test \\nin 2013, however, showed Winsted had moderate obstructive \\nlung disease and possibly restrictive lung disease. \\n \\n\\n Winsted began seeing an internist, Dr. Nedu Gopala, for \\nback pain in August 2013. The doctor prescribed medication \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 3\\n\\nfor Winsted’s breathing, chest pain, back pain, and anxiety. \\nAt appointments throughout 2013 and into March 2015, \\nWinsted’s range of motion in his arms and legs alternated \\nfrom full, to limited. He maintained a chronic cough, mild \\nshortness of breath, and wheezing, though a 2014 pulmonary \\nfunction test did not show any evidence of lung obstruction. \\n \\n\\n To address stress‐related heart issues, Winsted sought \\nmental‐health treatment in 2012. A therapist diagnosed him \\nwith a panic disorder, post‐traumatic stress disorder, and \\nmajor depressive disorder. Winsted had a guarded attitude, \\n“very little insight,” “below average” intellect, and was \\nassigned a Global Assessment of Function (“GAF”) of 51, \\nindicating he had moderate difficulty in social and occupa‐\\ntional functioning.1 AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, DIAGNOSTIC AND \\nSTATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS 32 (4th ed. 1994). \\nIn his therapy appointments, Winsted regularly complained \\nabout altercations with neighbors. \\n \\n\\n Later that year, Winsted sought treatment from a psychia‐\\ntrist, who diagnosed major depressive disorder and assigned \\na GAF of 45, indicating a serious impairment in social or \\noccupational functioning. AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, supra. The \\npsychiatrist reported that Winsted was tense, anxious, “very \\nrestless,” and moderately depressed. He prescribed medica‐\\ntion for anxiety and depression and continued to treat Win‐\\nsted. \\n \\n\\n \\n1 The GAF, which assesses an “individual’s overall level of functioning,” \\n\\nCraft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 676 n.7 (7th Cir. 2008), is no longer widely \\nused by psychiatrists and psychologists, but it was sometimes referred to \\nin social security disability hearings during Winsted’s proceedings. \\nSee Price v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 836, 839 (7th Cir. 2015). \\n\\f4 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n Between September 2013 and February 2015, Winsted’s \\nmental health fluctuated. In September 2013, Winsted’s \\npsychiatrist reported that his affect was appropriate, his \\nmood was not depressed, and “on the whole [he was] doing \\nbetter.” But two months later, Winsted’s affect was anxious, \\nhis mood was depressed, he was “feeling more irritable, \\nanxious, and restless,” and he suffered panic attacks. At a \\ntherapy session in July 2014, a therapist reported Winsted’s \\n“symptoms of depression and worry impair overall function‐\\ning,” and in August and November 2014, he was “mildly \\ndepressed.” But in February 2015, Winsted presented with an \\nappropriate affect and a not‐depressed mood. The same was \\ntrue in April 2015, though Winsted reported he sometimes felt \\n“tense and anxious” and stress continued to cause him to \\n“become overwhelmed.” \\n \\n\\n The disability application also triggered an examination in \\n2013 from an agency psychologist, Dr. Steven Marlow, who \\ndiagnosed Winsted with major depressive disorder, a gener‐\\nalized anxiety disorder, and a panic disorder. Specifically, he \\nreported Winsted “has a[n] avoidant, hostile, and easily \\ndistracted attitude.” Dr. Marlow determined Winsted had \\nbelow average levels of mental control, understanding and \\nmemory, and concentration; poor levels of persistence; and he \\ndid not do well in social situations. \\n \\n\\n A state‐agency physician, Dr. George Siderys, also exam‐\\nined Winsted in 2013 and opined he had a mild functional \\nimpairment. This included: “mild decrease in range of mo‐\\ntion,” pain that would be “expected to cause him problems \\nwith prolonged standing, walking, or heavy lifting,” and a \\nhistory of heart difficulties that would cause him to “wear out \\nif he participated in prolonged walking or lifting.” \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 5\\n\\n \\n\\n In connection with Winsted’s disability claim, treating \\nphysician Dr. Gopala completed a physical residual func‐\\ntional capacity (“RFC”) questionnaire in early 2015 and \\nreported Winsted suffered from hypertension, COPD, and \\nback pain, and described Winsted’s prognosis for back pain \\nas “poor.” He determined Winsted had a “painful range of \\nmovement” and was incapable of performing even “low \\nstress” work. Dr. Gopala also wrote that Winsted’s symptoms \\nwould affect his attention and concentration frequently; he \\ncould walk only about one block; and he could sit or stand for \\nonly 15 minutes at a time. \\n \\n\\n In April 2015, treating therapist Jessica Nevill filled out a \\nmental RFC questionnaire. She opined Winsted had marked \\nimpairments in his abilities to: relate to other people, respond \\nto supervision, respond to work pressures, and respond \\nappropriately to changes in the work setting. She wrote \\nWinsted would miss work three to four days per month \\nbecause of his impairments. \\n \\n\\n After the Social Security Administration denied Winsted’s \\napplication, he had a hearing before an ALJ. Winsted testified \\nhe used an inhaler twice a day, slept with a CPAP machine, \\nused a nebulizer for breathing every three months, and con‐\\ntinued to smoke a half‐a‐pack of cigarettes per day. He said \\nhe could not grip a two‐liter bottle with his left hand. Due to \\nthe pain in his knees and feet, he said he could stand for only \\na few minutes and, even then, he could not stand still. He also \\nsaid he could walk only a few blocks before needing to stop \\nand catch his breath, and experienced chest pain three to four \\ntimes per week. He noted he has trouble getting along with \\npeople and does not like to be around groups. \\n \\n\\f6 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n After Winsted testified, the ALJ asked the vocational \\nexpert (“VE”) three hypothetical questions. First, the ALJ \\nasked the VE to consider an individual of the same age, \\neducation, and work experience as Winsted. He continued: \\n \\n\\n This hypothetical individual would be capable \\n of light work, but four hours maximum stand‐\\n ing and walking in an eight hour day, only \\n occasional climbing of ramps, and stairs, but no \\n ropes, ladders, or scaffolds, only occasional bal‐\\n ancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and \\n crawling. Frequent, but not constant handling \\n and fingering bilaterally. This individual would \\n need to avoid concentrated exposure to breath‐\\n ing irritants, such as fumes, orders, dust, and \\n gasses, as well as wet, slippery surfaces, and \\n unprotected heights and would further be \\n limited to only simply reaching, repetitive tasks, \\n with few workplace changes, no team work, \\n and no interactions with the public. \\n \\n\\nThe expert determined such a person could work as a bench \\nassembler, electronics worker, or production assembler. In \\nthe second hypothetical, the ALJ asked about an individual \\nwith the same limitations as in the first hypothetical, but who \\nalso “due to impair‐related symptoms, such as the need to lay \\ndown during the day to relieve pain would be off task 20% of \\nthe work day.” The VE replied that such an individual could \\nnot sustain employment. Finally, the ALJ asked about a per‐\\nson with all the same limitations as provided in the first hy‐\\npothetical, “but due to the frequency of bad days versus good \\ndays, this individual would have two unscheduled absences \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 7\\n\\nper month.” Again, the VE answered, “there would be no \\njobs.” \\n \\n\\n The ALJ conducted the Administration’s 5‐step analysis, \\nsee 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), § 416.920(a), and found Winsted \\nnot disabled. At Step 1 the ALJ determined Winsted had not \\nengaged in substantial gainful activity since October 22, 2010. \\nAt Step 2 the ALJ identified Winsted’s severe impairments as \\ndegenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, bilateral carpal \\ntunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis in his left knee, bilateral \\ncavus foot, COPD, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, an affec‐\\ntive disorder, and an anxiety disorder. At Step 3 the ALJ \\nacknowledged Winsted had moderate difficulty with social \\nfunctioning and concentration, persistence, and pace because \\nof his mental‐health issues, but concluded these severe \\nimpairments did not meet a listing for presumptive disability. \\nBetween Steps 3 and 4 the ALJ determined Winsted had the \\nrequisite RFC to perform light work with certain limitations \\n(as provided in the first hypothetical, and including being \\nlimited to “simple, routine, repetitive tasks with few work‐\\nplace changes, no team work, and no interaction with the pub‐\\nlic”) but his limitations precluded him from performing his \\npast relevant work (Step 4). At Step 5 the ALJ concluded, \\nbased on Winsted’s age, education, work experience, and \\nRFC, that he was capable of successfully changing to other \\nwork. \\n \\n\\n Winsted appealed to the agency’s Appeals Council, which \\ndenied review. He then sought judicial review, and the par‐\\nties agreed to have a magistrate judge adjudicate this case. \\nSee 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). That judge upheld the ALJ’s decision. \\n\\f8 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n II. Analysis \\n \\n\\n A. ALJ’s Evaluation of Winsted’s Limitations in Concen‐\\n tration, Persistence, and Pace \\n \\n\\n Winsted argues neither the ALJ’s RFC nor his first hypo‐\\nthetical question properly accounted for the finding that he \\nhas “moderate” difficulties with concentration, persistence, \\nand pace. He submits the ALJ’s proposed limitations—that \\nWinsted perform only “simple, routine, repetitive tasks with \\nfew workplace changes”—fail to address his concentra‐\\ntion‐functioning deficits because “both the hypothetical \\nposed to the VE and the ALJ’s RFC assessment must incorpo‐\\nrate all of the claimant’s limitations supported by the medical \\nrecord.” Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 2015). \\n \\n\\n Winsted’s argument here is correct. Again and again, we \\nhave said that when an ALJ finds there are documented \\nlimitations of concentration, persistence, and pace, the hypo‐\\nthetical question presented to the VE must account for these \\nlimitations. Moreno v. Berryhill, 882 F.3d 722, 730 (7th Cir. \\n2018); Varga, 794 F.3d at 814‐15; OʹConnor‐Spinner v. Astrue, \\n627 F.3d 614, 620 (7th Cir. 2010); Stewart v. Astrue, 561 F.3d \\n679, 684 (7th Cir. 2009); Kasarsky v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 539, 544 \\n(7th Cir. 2003); see also Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1003 \\n(7th Cir. 2004). We have also made clear that in most cases \\n“employing terms like ‘simple, repetitive tasks on their own \\nwill not necessarily exclude from the VE’s consideration those \\npositions that present significant problems of concentration, \\npersistence and pace,” and thus, alone, are insufficient to pre‐\\nsent the claimant’s limitations in this area. OʹConnor‐Spinner, \\n627 F.3d at 620; see Moreno, 882 F.3d at 730. Here, at Step 3 the \\nALJ found Winsted’s moderate difficulties with \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 9\\n\\nconcentration, persistence, and pace could cause problems \\nwith concentration and following written instructions, as well \\nas stress with changes in his routine. And Winsted’s psychia‐\\ntrist and therapist both remarked that stress caused Winsted \\nto “become overwhelmed” and his depression impaired his \\noverall functioning. \\n \\n\\n But the first hypothetical the ALJ posed to the VE did not \\ndirect the expert to consider problems with concentration, \\npersistence, and pace, which is the hypothetical the ALJ relied \\non for the RFC. Though particular words need not be \\nincanted, we cannot look at the absence of the phrase “moder‐\\nate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and pace” and \\nfeel confident this limitation was properly incorporated in the \\nRFC and in the hypothetical question. See OʹConnor‐Spinner, \\n627 F.3d at 619. The ALJ may have thought, as the agency \\nproposes, he was addressing Winsted’s concentration diffi‐\\nculties by including limitations that would minimize social \\ninteraction. But that restriction could just have likely been \\nmeant to account for Winsted’s moderate difficulty with \\nsocial functioning—the ALJ acknowledged Winsted experi‐\\nences anxiety, panic attacks, and irritability when he is around \\npeople. Nothing in the hypothetical question and the RFC, \\nhowever, accounted for the ALJ’s discussion of how \\nWinsted’s low GAF scores reflect serious mental‐health \\nsymptoms or his mention that Winsted often “appeared tense, \\nanxious, and/or restless” without interacting with other people. \\nAdditionally, where a claimant’s limitations are stress‐\\nrelated, as Winsted’s appear to be, the hypothetical question \\nshould account for the level of stress a claimant can handle. \\nSee Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816, 820, 823 (7th Cir. 2007); \\nJohansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283, 285, 288–89 (7th Cir. 2002). \\n\\f10 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\nBut there was no restriction related to stress in the RFC or \\nhypothetical question. \\n \\n\\n Notably, it appears the ALJ disregarded testimony from \\nthe VE about a person with limitations in concentration, per‐\\nsistence, and pace. The ALJ asked two additional hypothetical \\nquestions of the VE about an individual who would either be \\noff task 20% of the workday or would have two unscheduled \\nabsences per month—presumably assuming someone with \\n“moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and \\npace.” The VE responded that neither individual could \\nsustain employment. But these responses are not reflected in \\nthe ALJ’s decision, which means it cannot stand. \\n \\n\\n B. ALJ’s Evaluation of the Medical Opinion Evidence \\n \\n\\n Winsted also challenges the evidentiary weight the ALJ \\ngave to four medical opinions, two from treating medical \\nprofessionals (Dr. Gopala and Ms. Nevill) and two from state \\nagency doctors (examining psychologist Dr. Marlow and \\nconsultative examiner Dr. Siderys). \\n \\n\\n Before reaching the merits of this argument, we must \\naddress the agency’s contention that Winsted waived it. The \\nagency is not correct on this; Winsted never “knowingly and \\nintelligently relinquished” his claim, Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. \\n463, 470 n.4 (2012). That he developed the argument poorly \\nmeans at most he forfeited it. Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, \\n254 (7th Cir. 2016). \\n \\n\\n Forfeited or not, this argument fails. In the decision, the \\nALJ adequately articulated why he gave each opinion the \\nweight he did, entitling his decision, in this respect, to our \\ndeference. See Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413, 416 (7th Cir. \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 11\\n\\n2008). Starting with Dr. Gopala, the ALJ appropriately ques‐\\ntioned the doctor’s conclusion—that Winsted had a painful \\nrange of motion that made him incapable of engaging in \\n“low‐stress” work—in light of other record evidence. This \\nincluded Dr. Gopala’s own notes, which showed Winsted \\nregularly had a full range of motion, no gross sensory or \\nmotor deficits, fine motor skills within normal limits, and \\nlungs that “have often been clear.” And though treating phy‐\\nsician’s opinions, like Dr. Gopala’s, are usually entitled to \\ncontrolling weight, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96‐2p,2 \\nan ALJ may discredit the opinion if it is inconsistent with the \\nrecord. See Loveless v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir. 2016); \\nCampbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010); 20 C.F.R. \\n§ 404.1527(c)(2). \\n \\n\\n Next, Winsted argues the ALJ erred in giving little eviden‐\\ntiary weight to Ms. Nevill’s mental RFC assessment. But the \\nALJ wrote he discounted her report because she was a \\nnon‐medical professional, and thus not an “acceptable medi‐\\ncal source” See 20 CFR § 404.1513(a), § 416.913(a). Also, her \\nfindings were “based solely on [Winsted’s] subjective \\ncomplaints”—an appropriate reason for an ALJ to discount \\nan opinion, see Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. \\n2008). Additionally, he found Ms. Nevill’s report, like Dr. Go‐\\npala’s, was inconsistent with Winsted’s medical‐health record \\nas a whole. See Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2012) \\n(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)‐(3)). \\n \\n\\n\\n\\n \\n2 The treating‐physician rule, which was eliminated for claims filed after \\n\\nMarch 27, 2017, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (2017), still applies to Winsted’s \\nearlier filed claim, see Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018); \\n20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. \\n\\f12 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n Finally, Winsted claims the ALJ gave short shrift to the \\ntwo state examiners’ 2013 opinions, asserting the ALJ erred in \\ndiscussing the state psychologist’s evaluation “in one \\nsentence” and the state physician’s opinion in a footnote. But \\nas the agency points out, the ALJ discussed these opinions \\nthroughout the decision. The ALJ cited the state psycholo‐\\ngist’s findings when discussing Winsted’s mental‐health \\ndiagnosis, and referred repeatedly to the state physician’s \\nopinion throughout his discussion of Winsted’s gait, grip \\nstrength, and scattered wheezing. The court applies a \\ncommon‐sense reading to the entirety of an ALJ’s decision. \\nRice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363, 369 (7th Cir. 2004); Shramek \\nv. Apfel, 226 F.3d 809, 811 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, the ALJ ade‐\\nquately articulated his reasons for discounting these two \\nopinions—both reports were based on only one evaluation \\nand largely reflected Winsted’s subjective reporting. See Elder, \\n529 F.3d at 416; Rice, 384 F.3d at 371 (ALJs should rely on \\nmedical opinions “based on objective observations,” not \\n“subjective complaints.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(i) (ALJs \\nshould consider “frequency of examination” in weight it \\nassigns opinion). \\n \\n\\n III. Conclusion \\n \\n\\n Because the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the vocational \\nexaminer and the residual function capacity did not capture \\none of Winsted’s most significant problems—his concentra‐\\ntion‐functioning deficits—we conclude further proceedings \\nare necessary on that issue only. Therefore, we REVERSE the \\ndistrict court judgment and REMAND this case to the Social \\nSecurity Administration.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":684,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589050,"string":"4,589,050"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Linda Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-1469"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"David Frank Hamilton\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐1469 \\nLINDA REED, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \\n v. \\n\\nCOLUMBIA ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL, \\n Defendant‐Appellee. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Eastern District of Wisconsin. \\n No. 14‐CV‐330 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff‐appellant Linda Reed al‐\\nleges that she suffered discrimination on the basis of her dis‐\\nabilities while she was a patient at defendant‐appellee Colum‐\\nbia St. Mary’s Hospital in March 2012. Among other things, \\nshe contends that the hospital failed to accommodate her dis‐\\nabilities by deliberately withholding from her a device she \\nused to speak and discriminated against her by putting her in \\n\\f2 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\na “seclusion” room to punish her. She brought claims under \\nTitle III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 \\nU.S.C. § 12181, which governs public accommodations of‐\\nfered by private entities, including hospitals, as well as Sec‐\\ntion 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Wis‐\\nconsin Mental Health Act, Wis. Stat. § 51.61. \\n The district court granted the hospital’s motion for sum‐\\nmary judgment, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice \\nand declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the \\nremaining state‐law claims. Reed v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hospi‐\\ntal, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1091 (E.D. Wis. 2017). The court held that \\nthe hospital did not need to comply with Title III of the ADA \\nbecause it fell within the Act’s exemption for entities con‐\\ntrolled by religious organizations. Id. at 1103–04, citing 42 \\nU.S.C. § 12187. The court also dismissed Reed’s Rehabilitation \\nAct claims, finding that the hospital’s alleged mistreatment of \\nReed was not premised solely on Reed’s disability. Id. at 1105–\\n08. \\n We reverse. The hospital raised its religious exemption af‐\\nfirmative defense to the ADA claims for the first time after \\ndiscovery, in its motion for summary judgment. We explain \\nbelow why we conclude it was an abuse of discretion to ex‐\\ncuse the hospital’s failure to raise this affirmative defense ear‐\\nlier. We also reverse the dismissal of Reed’s Rehabilitation Act \\nclaims on the merits because they depend on disputed facts. \\nI. Factual & Procedural Background \\n A. Reed’s Stay in the Hospital \\n Our statement of facts reflects our standard of review for \\na grant of summary judgment. We cannot vouch for the ob‐\\njective truth of every detail. We review the facts and draw all \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 3\\n\\ninferences from conflicting evidence in the light reasonably \\nmost favorable to Reed as the non‐moving party. Greengrass \\nv. International Monetary Systems Ltd., 776 F.3d 481, 485 (7th \\nCir. 2015). \\n Reed suffers from several disabilities, including tardive \\ndyskinesia (“TD”), bipolar disorder, and post‐traumatic stress \\ndisorder. TD is a neurological disorder that causes involun‐\\ntary facial and limb movements and makes speaking difficult. \\nReed has been prescribed a portable communication device \\ncalled a Dynavox that she can use to generate speech. \\n Reed entered the hospital’s emergency department on \\nMarch 8, 2012. She reported suicidal thoughts. She was admit‐\\nted to the inpatient behavioral health unit and left on March \\n12. Reed alleges that during her four‐day stay at the hospital \\nshe was discriminated against in multiple ways. She claims \\nthat she was denied the use of her Dynavox; that hospital staff \\nattempted to give her medication she was allergic to; that she \\nwas denied timely access to her medical records; that she was \\ndenied the use of a telephone to call her case manager (about \\nwhom the record reveals little); that she was denied access to \\na chaplain; and that she was physically escorted off the prem‐\\nises by two security guards. Notably, the hospital’s corporate \\nrepresentative and nursing supervisor, William Fry, testified \\nin his deposition that the Dynavox was locked up outside \\nReed’s room at night and that she had access to it during the \\nday only “as long as her behavior was appropriate.” \\n The most severe of Reed’s allegations is that on March 11, \\nhospital staff refused to give her the Dynavox and took her to \\na seclusion room, where she was dropped on a mattress on \\nthe floor and later attempted suicide. Reed and the hospital \\ngive differing accounts of what exactly took place during this \\n\\f4 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nincident. Reed claims that she asked for her Dynavox, that \\nhospital staff refused to give it to her, that her TD‐related \\nmovements caused her to spill coffee on herself and to fall to \\nthe ground, and that patient‐care assistant Andrew Miller \\ngrabbed her and put her in the seclusion room for about two \\nhours. Miller testified, on the other hand, that Reed was on \\nthe ground in a hallway crying and he told her she needed to \\nget out of the hallway. When he was walking her back to her \\nroom, he claims, she began to scream and he and nursing su‐\\npervisor Fry decided to take her to the seclusion room. On re‐\\nview of a grant of summary judgment for the defendant, of \\ncourse, we must accept the plaintiff’s version of events. Reed \\nwas discharged the day after this incident. According to Reed, \\nher Dynavox and other possessions were thrown into a cab, \\nand she was pushed into it by a security guard and sent off. \\n B. The District Court Proceedings \\n Reed filed her first complaint pro se in February 2014. The \\ndistrict court dismissed that case without prejudice. The next \\nmonth, Reed filed this new lawsuit, which the court construed \\nas raising claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. \\nThe district court dismissed again, holding that the dismissal \\nof the prior suit had preclusive effect and alternatively that \\nReed failed to state a claim. Reed appealed pro se. We vacated \\nand remanded because the first case had been dismissed with‐\\nout prejudice and thus did not preclude the second. Reed v. \\nColumbia St. Mary’s Hospital, 782 F.3d 331, 335–36 (7th Cir. \\n2015). We also held that Reed stated viable claims under the \\nADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 337. \\n On remand, the district court recruited counsel for Reed. \\nHer amended complaint asserted claims under the ADA for \\nintentional discrimination, denial of reasonable modification, \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 5\\n\\nand retaliation and intimidation; claims under the Rehabilita‐\\ntion Act for intentional discrimination and denial of reasona‐\\nble accommodation; and patients’‐rights claims under Wis‐\\nconsin state law. The hospital filed answers to both the origi‐\\nnal complaint and the amended complaint. Each answer as‐\\nserted several affirmative defenses. Neither answer men‐\\ntioned a religious exemption from the ADA. Discovery was \\nconducted from September 2015 to August 2016. In October \\n2016, the hospital moved for summary judgment, which the \\ndistrict court granted. \\nII. Analysis \\n This appeal presents one procedural issue and a cluster of \\nsubstantive issues. The procedural issue is whether the dis‐\\ntrict court abused its discretion in allowing the hospital to \\nraise for the first time on summary judgment the affirmative \\ndefense of the ADA’s Title III religious exemption. The sub‐\\nstantive issues concern the merits of the Rehabilitation Act \\nclaims. \\n A. The ADA Claims \\n 1. The Religious Exemption Defense Under ADA Title III \\n Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination by \\n“public accommodations,” including hospitals. See 42 U.S.C. \\n§ 12181(7). Title III provides: “No individual shall be discrim‐\\ninated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal \\nenjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, ad‐\\nvantages, or accommodations of any place of public accom‐\\nmodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). It is unlawful to “fail[] to take \\nsuch steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual \\nwith a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or \\notherwise treated differently than other individuals because \\n\\f6 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nof the absence of auxiliary aids and services,” unless the de‐\\nfendant can show that such accommodation “would funda‐\\nmentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privi‐\\nlege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would \\nresult in an undue burden.” § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). A physical \\nor mental impairment that “substantially limits one or more \\nmajor life activities,” including “speaking,” qualifies as a dis‐\\nability under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act (dis‐\\ncussed below). See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), (2)(A); 29 U.S.C. \\n§ 705(20)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(j)(2)(ii); 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(ii). \\n Title III of the ADA applies generally to hospitals, but Title \\nIII exempts from its requirements “religious organizations” \\nand “entities controlled by religious organizations, including \\nplaces of worship.” 42 U.S.C. § 12187. This exemption is an \\naffirmative defense. A defendant invoking it must plead it in \\nthe answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c); Castro v. Chicago Housing \\nAuthority, 360 F.3d 721, 735 (7th Cir. 2004). Rule 8(c) applies to \\n“any avoidance or affirmative defense,” and lists a number of \\nparticular defenses that must be pleaded. The religious ex‐\\nemption in Title III of the ADA is an affirmative defense be‐\\ncause it assumes the plaintiff can prove everything she must \\nto establish her claim but may still act to defeat her claim.1 \\n It makes sense for the defendant claiming the Title III reli‐\\ngious exemption to bear the burden of pleading and proving \\nits religious control. We have said that a defense not listed in \\nRule 8(c) is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded if the \\n \\n 1 “An affirmative defense is one that admits the allegations in the com‐\\n\\nplaint, but avoids liability, in whole or in part, by new allegations of ex‐\\ncuse, justification or other negating matters.” Divine v. Volunteers of Amer‐\\nica of Illinois, 319 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1003 (N.D. Ill. 2018), quoting Riemer v. \\nChase Bank USA, N.A., 274 F.R.D. 637, 639 (N.D. Ill. 2011). \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 7\\n\\ndefendant bears the burden of proof on the issue under state \\nlaw or if the defense does not controvert the plaintiff’s proof. \\nWinforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856, 872 (7th \\nCir. 2012). The religious exemption defense does not contro‐\\nvert the plaintiff’s proof. It also draws on facts ordinarily \\nwithin the knowledge and control of the defendant. See Gomez \\nv. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640–41 (1980) (qualified immunity is \\naffirmative defense under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; relevant facts are \\npeculiarly within knowledge and control of defendant); \\nWright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1271. An \\nADA plaintiff should not need to spend the money to antici‐\\npate this defense without fair and timely notice that the de‐\\nfendant intends to rely upon it. \\n 2. Consequences of Failure to Plead a Defense \\n A defendant’s failure to plead an affirmative defense may \\nresult in a waiver of the defense if the defendant has relin‐\\nquished it knowingly and intelligently, or forfeiture if the de‐\\nfendant merely failed to preserve the defense by pleading it. \\nSee Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 470 & n.4 (2012). Some of \\nour opinions use the terms waiver and forfeiture interchange‐\\nably, but Wood shows that we need to pay attention to the dif‐\\nference. Whether courts apply waiver or forfeiture in re‐\\nsponse to a failure to plead, the purpose of the pleading re‐\\nquirement for an affirmative defense “is to avoid surprise and \\nundue prejudice to the plaintiff by providing her notice and \\nthe opportunity to demonstrate why the defense should not \\nprevail.” Venters v. City of Delphi, 123 F.3d 956, 967 (7th Cir. \\n1997). \\n We have explained, however, that “the rule that forfeits an \\naffirmative defense not pleaded in the answer (or by an earlier \\nmotion) is, we want to make clear, not to be applied rigidly.” \\n\\f8 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nGarofalo v. Village of Hazel Crest, 754 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. \\n2014), citing Matthews v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., Inc., 642 F.3d \\n565, 570 (7th Cir. 2011). We will generally find that the failure \\nto plead an affirmative defense in the answer works a forfei‐\\nture “only if the plaintiff is harmed by the defendant’s delay \\nin asserting it.” Id. There are limits, though, and in exercising \\ntheir discretion in such matters, district courts must be alert \\nto the real and practical harms that can result from failures to \\nplead. We have explained that \\n the district court has the discretion to allow an \\n answer to be amended to assert an affirmative \\n defense not raised at the outset. The pertinence \\n of a particular defense may only become appar‐\\n ent after discovery, for example, in which case it \\n would be reasonable for the court to permit the \\n belated assertion of that defense. Nonetheless, \\n the defendant remains obligated to act in timely \\n fashion. Once the availability of an affirmative \\n defense is reasonably apparent, the defendant \\n must alert the parties and the court to his intent \\n to pursue that defense. A defendant should not \\n be permitted to “lie behind a log” and ambush \\n a plaintiff with an unexpected defense. The ap‐\\n propriate thing for the defendant to do, of \\n course, is to promptly seek the court’s leave to \\n amend his answer. His failure to do [so] risks a \\n finding that he has waived the defense. \\nVenters, 123 F.3d at 967–68 (internal citations and quotation \\nmarks omitted). \\n Pleadings shape the litigation, including the scope and \\ncost of discovery. Based on the claims and defenses raised in \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 9\\n\\nthe pleadings, the parties can discover information that is rel‐\\nevant, not privileged, and proportional to the needs of the \\ncase. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Many efficiencies are lost when \\nclaims or defenses are left out of pleadings and a party then \\nattempts to assert them at later stages. At the same time, it is \\nnot unusual for parties to discover new theories for claims or \\ndefenses in the course of discovery. Timely motions to amend \\npleadings for such newly discovered theories are appropriate \\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). \\n We see these problems more often when plaintiffs try to \\nraise new theories or claims for the first time in opposing sum‐\\nmary judgment. The concerns about unfair surprise and prej‐\\nudice with unpleaded affirmative defenses are similar: \\n When a new argument is made in summary \\n judgment briefing, the correct first step is to con‐\\n sider whether it changes the complaint’s factual \\n theory, or just the legal theories [the] plaintiff \\n has pursued so far. In the former situation, the \\n plaintiff may be attempting in effect to amend \\n its complaint, and the district court has discre‐\\n tion to deny the de facto amendment and to re‐\\n fuse to consider the new factual claims. In the \\n latter, the court should consider the conse‐\\n quences of allowing the plaintiff’s new theory. \\n If it would, for example, cause unreasonable de‐\\n lay, or make it more costly or difficult to defend \\n the suit, the district court can and should hold \\n the plaintiff to his original theory. \\nBRC Rubber & Plastics, Inc. v. Cont’l Carbon Co., 900 F.3d 529, \\n540 (7th Cir. 2018) (citations and internal quotation marks \\n\\f10 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nomitted), quoting Chessie Logistics Co. v. Krinos Holdings, Inc., \\n867 F.3d 852, 860 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n We routinely enforce this stricture against plaintiffs who \\nwait until summary‐judgment briefing to raise a new claim, \\ndespite the absence of an express pleading requirement, since \\ncomplaints need not identify legal theories. See, e.g., Anderson \\nv. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989, 997 (7th Cir. 2012) (pro se plaintiff); \\nWhitaker v. Milwaukee County, 772 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2014); \\nTrade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., 573 F.3d 401, 412 (7th \\nCir. 2009); Conner v. Illinois Dep’t of Natural Resources, 413 F.3d \\n675, 679–80 (7th Cir. 2005); Griffin v. Potter, 356 F.3d 824, 830 \\n(7th Cir. 2004); Grayson v. O’Neill, 308 F.3d 808, 817 (7th Cir. \\n2002); Whitaker v. T.J. Snow Co., 151 F.3d 661, 663–64 (7th Cir. \\n1998); Auston v. Schubnell, 116 F.3d 251, 255 (7th Cir. 1997); \\nShanahan v. City of Chicago, 82 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir. 1996); \\nKostovetsky v. Ambit Energy Holdings, LLC, 242 F. Supp. 3d 708, \\n718–19 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (reviewing Seventh Circuit case law). \\nIn much the same way, late assertions of affirmative de‐\\nfenses—like the religious exemption to Title III of the ADA—\\nmake litigation more costly and difficult and can make it un‐\\nfairly difficult for a plaintiff to pursue her claims. \\n 3. The District Court’s Ruling \\n The district court held that the hospital did not waive or \\nforfeit its religious exemption affirmative defense. The court \\nacknowledged that the hospital raised the defense for the first \\ntime in its motion for summary judgment but explained that \\nsince this defense is not expressly listed in Federal Rule of \\nCivil Procedure 8(c), “it is not clear that failure to assert it in \\nthe answer waives it.” 236 F. Supp. 3d at 1101. That rationale \\nwill not hold water here. Precedent offers sufficiently clear \\nguidance on when defenses not enumerated in Rule 8(c) must \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 11\\n\\nbe pleaded. See, e.g., Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640–41 \\n(1980); Winforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856, \\n872 (7th Cir. 2012); Sundstrand Corp. v. Standard Kollsman In‐\\ndustries, Inc., 488 F.2d 807, 813 (7th Cir. 1973); Brunswick Leas‐\\ning Corp. v. Wisconsin Cent., Ltd., 136 F.3d 521, 530 (7th Cir. \\n1998). The statutory exemption here is based on facts in a de‐\\nfendant’s control and clearly falls within the category of af‐\\nfirmative defenses. \\n The district court also held that Reed was not prejudiced \\nby the hospital’s delay in asserting this defense. For support, \\nthe court relied on an exchange during the deposition of nurs‐\\ning supervisor William Fry in February 2016, six months be‐\\nfore the close of discovery, to find that Reed knew “for a sub‐\\nstantial period that the religious exemption defense was a \\npossibility.” Reed, 236 F. Supp. 3d at 1101. We respectfully dis‐\\nagree. Here is the entire discussion from Fry’s deposition: \\n Q And so who – what is your understanding of \\n the ownership of Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital \\n Milwaukee? \\n MR. FOLEY: Object to form and foundation. \\n THE WITNESS: I don’t really know the answer \\n to that. I don’t really understand – I don’t know \\n the answer to that. \\n BY MS. BARNES: Who owns the organization? \\n MR. FOLEY: Object to form and foundation. \\n THE WITNESS: I’ll try to answer that. Ascen‐\\n sion Healthcare is our parent sponsor of this \\n ministry. \\n\\f12 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\n BY MS. BARNES: What does that mean, spon‐\\n sor? \\n MR. FOLEY: Object to form. \\n THE WITNESS: Ascension Healthcare has mul‐\\n tiple hospitals in multiple states across the \\n country. That is, again, our – as far as I under‐\\n stand it, our parent ownership structure. \\n BY MS. BARNES: Okay. And is Ascension a re‐\\n ligious organization? \\n A Yes. \\n Q What type of religious organization? \\n A It’s a mission of the Roman Catholic Church. \\n Q A mission? \\n A Um‐hum. \\n Q So is it – is it – \\n A A ministry, I should have said. I ministry of \\n the Roman Catholic Church. \\n Q So is it – does it follow the principles of the \\n Catholic church, when you say “ministry”? \\n MR. FOLEY: I’ll object to form and foundation. \\n I think this is far afield of – \\n THE WITNESS: Yeah, this is beyond my \\n knowledge and expertise. \\n MR. FOLEY: – his knowledge. But if you can an‐\\n swer, go ahead. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 13\\n\\n THE WITNESS: As far as I know, yes. I guess I \\n don’t really understand the question. \\n BY MS. BARNES: What does it mean to be a \\n ministry, I guess? I’m trying to understand it as \\n well. \\n A Well, we’re a not for profit in the ministry of \\n providing healthcare. \\nFry Dep. at 13–15. \\n This brief exchange was with a witness who obviously did \\nnot understand the issue or identify the exemption, let alone \\ntry to assert the exemption. It is not comparable to a lawyer’s \\nstatement that the party intends to assert a defense. The ex‐\\nchange did not put Reed on fair notice that the hospital would \\nbe asserting the religious exemption and that she needed to \\nspend the time and money to conduct full‐bore discovery on \\nwhether the hospital could satisfy the ADA’s religious ex‐\\nemption. \\n The district court also thought that Reed knew when she \\nfiled suit that the hospital was at least nominally associated \\nwith the Catholic faith. Nominal association told plaintiff and \\ntells us nothing about the availability of the religious exemp‐\\ntion. The statutory test is “control.” 42 U.S.C. § 12187. Count‐\\nless entities have names that are associated with religions but \\nare not subject to religious control. \\n Finally, the district court noted that Reed’s response to the \\nhospital’s motion for summary judgment showed that she \\nhad studied the hospital’s corporate structure and governing \\ndocuments (or at least those submitted by the hospital). We \\n\\f14 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nhave a limited record before us on this issue.2 The structure \\nappears to be as follows: the hospital’s sole corporate member \\nis Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. In turn, Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. \\nis “sponsored by” its two corporate members: Ascension \\nHealth (a Catholic national health system) and Columbia \\nHealth System, Inc. (a non‐sectarian community health sys‐\\ntem). Ascension Health is a subsidiary of Ascension Health \\nAlliance, which is a subsidiary of Ascension Health Minis‐\\ntries. The Congregation of Consecrated Life and Societies of \\nApostolic Life of the Vatican conferred public juridic person‐\\nality on Ascension Health Ministries in June 2011. Ascension \\nHealth Ministries’ governing documents state that it shall be \\ngoverned in accordance with canon law. Thus, the hospital is \\nsubject to two lines of control: (1) a Catholic one (Ascension \\nHealth Ministries —> Ascension Health Alliance —> Ascen‐\\nsion Health —> Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. —> the hospital); \\nand (2) a non‐sectarian one (Columbia Health System —> Co‐\\nlumbia St. Mary’s Inc. —> the hospital). \\n The hospital’s bylaws reflect these two lines of control: \\nthey say that the hospital “shall be and remain a Catholic fa‐\\ncility or institution” but also that the hospital will “respect the \\nnonsectarian traditions and values of Columbia Health Sys‐\\ntem.” Similarly reflecting these two lines of control but revers‐\\ning the emphasis, the bylaws of Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. (the \\nhospital’s sole corporate member) say that it “shall not be a \\nCatholic facility or institution” but that it will not perform \\n\\n \\n 2 The record is limited since this defense was sprung on Reed in the \\n\\nmotion for summary judgment. Most of the relevant evidence comes from \\nthe documents the hospital chose to submit. Even those documents show \\na complicated corporate legal structure and an ambiguous relationship \\nwith the hospital’s Catholic affiliates. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 15\\n\\nmedical procedures inconsistent with Catholic ethical direc‐\\ntives. Columbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s bylaws reserve certain pow‐\\ners to both Ascension Health and Columbia Health System.3 \\nColumbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s officers and board members “serve \\nex officio” as the hospital’s officers and board members. Im‐\\nportant for the issue of control, the board members are recom‐\\nmended by Columbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s existing board for ap‐\\npointment by Ascension Health and are intended to “be \\nbroadly representative of the communities served.” Relying \\non this corporate structure as disclosed by the hospital in its \\nsummary judgment materials, the district court determined \\nthat the hospital was sufficiently controlled by the Catholic \\nChurch as to fall within Title III’s religious exemption and to \\nmake it immune to Reed’s ADA claims. \\n 4. Abuse of Discretion \\n We express no opinion on whether, after full discovery \\nand fair litigation of the issue on a more complete record, the \\nhospital might fit within the exemption for entities controlled \\nby religious organizations. Instead, we find that the district \\ncourt abused its discretion by considering this affirmative de‐\\nfense at all. \\n Several factors point in this direction. First, the defendant \\nhospital has offered no excuse or explanation for failing to \\nplead the defense in it answers or for raising the defense so \\nlate. Without a credible excuse for the delay, the hospital’s late \\ninvocation of the defense looks like a straight ambush of the \\nplaintiff when it was too late for her to put together a \\n \\n 3 We are told that these dual lines of control are also detailed in the \\n\\nterms of an Affiliation Agreement, but that document has not been pro‐\\nduced to Reed or included in the record. \\n\\f16 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\ncomprehensive rebuttal. Second, the religious‐exemption de‐\\nfense should not ordinarily depend on discovery from the \\nplaintiff, as will often be the case with other affirmative de‐\\nfenses such as statutes of limitations, estoppels, waivers, and \\nothers. Instead, the religious‐exemption defense will ordinar‐\\nily depend on facts within the knowledge and control of the \\ndefendant itself. Third, the defendant did not deploy this de‐\\nfense until after discovery had closed, meaning both parties \\nhad already invested a good deal of time and money in the \\ncase on the legitimate expectation that they knew what the is‐\\nsues were. Allowing a last‐minute defense that introduces \\nsuch new factual and legal issues after discovery has closed \\nraises the costs of litigation and allows the party that was at \\nleast negligent in failing to plead its defense to take unfair ad‐\\nvantage of its opposing party. Fourth, the district court’s ra‐\\ntionale for allowing the defense to be raised so late simply \\ndoes not withstand scrutiny. In this case, a few facts relevant \\nto this potential affirmative defense came up briefly in one \\ndeposition. As we explained above, that cannot be reasonably \\ntreated as fair notice that the hospital would actually assert \\nthe defense and that the plaintiff would need to spend the \\ntime and money needed to meet that defense. The plaintiff \\nwas entitled to rely on Rule 8(c) and the hospital’s silence in \\nits pleadings. \\n The situation here is similar to that in Venters v. City of Del‐\\nphi, where we concluded that the defendants waived their \\nstatute of limitations affirmative defense. 123 F.3d 956, 967–69 \\n(7th Cir. 1997). There, the defendants failed to include the de‐\\nfense in their answers to the original and amended com‐\\nplaints. We could “discern no justification for the delay” when \\nthey asserted the defense for the first time in their reply mem‐\\norandum in support of their motion for summary judgment. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 17\\n\\nId. at 968. While a difference here is that Reed was at least \\ngiven notice of the defense in the motion for summary judg‐\\nment itself and could attempt to respond, she was still at a \\nserious disadvantage. That notice came after the parties had \\ncompleted discovery. As in Venters, we “cannot overlook the \\nfailure to comply with Rule 8(c) in this context. Intentionally \\nor not, [plaintiff] was bushwacked.” Id. at 969. Put simply, “it \\nwas not [plaintiff’s] obligation to raise the defense, and if Rule \\n8(c) is not to become a nullity, we must not countenance at‐\\ntempts to invoke such defenses at the eleventh hour, without \\nexcuse and without adequate notice to the plaintiff.” Id.4 \\n Finally, the prejudice to Reed from the delayed assertion \\nof the defense is especially acute here because the relevant law \\nand facts simply are not clear. The ADA does not define what \\nit means to be considered a “religious organization” or to be \\n“controlled by a religious organization.” See 42 U.S.C. § \\n12187. To our knowledge, no federal appellate court has yet \\nconstrued this religious exemption. Several district courts \\nhave—including the veteran judge who decided this case. \\nSee Rose v. Cahee, 727 F. Supp. 2d 728, 747 (E.D. Wis. 2010).5 \\n\\n \\n 4 In contrast, we held that a district court did not abuse its discretion \\n\\nin Robinson v. Sappington when it allowed the defendants to amend their \\npleadings at summary judgment to add affirmative defenses. 351 F.3d 317, \\n332–33 (7th Cir. 2003). There, the record showed that the plaintiff had suf‐\\nficient notice that the defendants might pursue the defenses because de‐\\nfense counsel had explored them in detail during discovery. Id. Further, \\nthe plaintiff did not suggest she was prejudiced in any way by the late \\namendment. Id. \\n 5 In Rose, the court applied the religious exemption where a Roman \\n\\nCatholic institute sponsored a healthcare corporation and occupied a pri‐\\nmary role in the corporation’s corporate governance structure, the insti‐\\ntute members made up the entirety of one class of corporate membership, \\n\\f18 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nThese district court decisions show that the issue can be com‐\\nplex, both factually and legally. These decisions have cited \\nand relied on the following Department of Justice interpreta‐\\ntion of the religious exemption: \\n The ADA’s exemption of religious organiza‐\\n tions and religious entities controlled by reli‐\\n gious organizations is very broad, encompass‐\\n ing a wide variety of situations. Religious or‐\\n ganizations and entities controlled by religious \\n organizations have no obligations under the \\n ADA. Even when a religious organization car‐\\n ries out activities that would otherwise make it \\n a public accommodation, the religious organi‐\\n zation is exempt from ADA coverage. Thus, if a \\n church itself operates a day care center, a \\n\\n \\nand the institute’s class members had the sole authority to amend or re‐\\npeal the corporation’s articles of incorporation and bylaws. 727 F. Supp. \\n2d at 747. As for the other district court cases applying the exemption, \\nReed correctly points out that in none was the defense raised late, and in \\nall there was greater evidence of religious control. See Cole v. Saint Francis \\nMedical Ctr., No. 1:15‐CV‐98(ACL), 2016 WL 7474988, at *4‐6 (E.D. Mo. \\nDec. 29, 2016) (exemption was “properly raised by Defendant as an affirm‐\\native defense” and hospital was “under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of \\nthe Roman Catholic Dioceses[.]”); Marshall v. Sisters of the Holy Family of \\nNazareth, 399 F. Supp. 2d 597, 606 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (school “solely operated \\nand controlled by” order of nuns); White v. Denver Seminary, 157 F. Supp. \\n2d 1171, 1173–74 (D. Colo. 2001) (seminary was founded by Baptist asso‐\\nciation and employees were required to be active Christians). By contrast, \\nin Sloan v. Community Christian Day School, LLC, a Christian school was \\nfound to not be exempt since the school was not owned, affiliated with, or \\nfinancially supported by any recognized religious group and was instead \\nowned by two individuals who were not ministers. No. 3–15–0551, 2015 \\nWL 10437824, at * 3, (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 11, 2015). \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 19\\n\\n nursing home, a private school, or a diocesan \\n school system, the operations of the center, \\n home, school, or schools would not be subject to \\n the requirements of the ADA or this part. The \\n religious entity would not lose its exemption \\n merely because the services provided were \\n open to the general public. The test is whether \\n the church or other religious organization oper‐\\n ates the public accommodation, not which indi‐\\n viduals receive the public accommodationʹs ser‐\\n vices. \\n Religious entities that are controlled by reli‐\\n gious organizations are also exempt from the \\n ADA’s requirements. Many religious organiza‐\\n tions in the United States use lay boards and \\n other secular or corporate mechanisms to oper‐\\n ate schools and an array of social services. The \\n use of a lay board or other mechanism does not \\n itself remove the ADA’s religious exemption. \\n Thus, a parochial school, having religious doc‐\\n trine in its curriculum and sponsored by a reli‐\\n gious order, could be exempt either as a reli‐\\n gious organization or as an entity controlled by \\n a religious organization, even if it has a lay \\n board. The test remains a factual one – whether the \\n church or other religious organization controls the \\n operations of the school or of the service or whether \\n the school or service is itself a religious organization. \\n28 C.F.R. ch. 1., pt. 36, App’x C (emphasis added). \\n For this appeal, the critical points are that the law govern‐\\ning the hospital’s affirmative defense is still highly contestable \\n\\f20 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nand its application may well depend on a host of facts that \\nwould need to be explored in some depth. Before summary \\njudgment briefing, plaintiff Reed had no notice that she \\nneeded to prepare to meet the defense. \\n We have considered the possibility of a response less dras‐\\ntic than treating the hospital’s religious‐exemption defense as \\nforfeited. One possibility would be to allow the parties to pur‐\\nsue further discovery on that issue and to have the hospital \\npay for plaintiff’s reasonable costs and attorney fees for that \\nprocess. In this case, however, the hospital has offered no \\ncredible excuse for its delay, and the normal rule is forfeiture \\nof unpleaded defenses. The remedy of reopening discovery \\nwould also impose additional delay on Reed. We see no miti‐\\ngating factors here that would favor anything other than en‐\\nforcement of Rule 8(c) as written and treating the defense as \\nforfeited. We therefore reverse summary judgment for the \\nhospital on the ADA claims. \\n B. Rehabilitation Act Claims \\n 1. Legal Standard \\n We now turn to the merits of Reed’s Rehabilitation Act \\nclaims. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides: “No \\notherwise qualified individual with a disability … shall, \\nsolely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the \\nparticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to \\ndiscrimination under any program or activity receiving Fed‐\\neral financial assistance[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Four elements \\nmust be satisfied to establish a violation of Section 504: (1) the \\nplaintiff must be a handicapped individual as defined by the \\nAct; (2) the plaintiff must be “otherwise qualified” for partic‐\\nipation in the program; (3) the program must receive federal \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 21\\n\\nfinancial assistance; and (4) the plaintiff must have been “de‐\\nnied the benefits of the program solely because of his handi‐\\ncap.” See Mallet v. Wisconsin Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation, \\n130 F.3d 1245, 1257 (7th Cir. 1997). The hospital contests only \\nthis fourth element of sole cause. The ADA and the Rehabili‐\\ntation Act are otherwise very similar, but the Rehabilitation \\nAct prohibits discrimination only if it is “solely by reason of” \\na person’s disability. The ADA permits mixed‐motive claims. \\nSee Whitaker v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Health Servs., 849 F.3d 681, \\n684 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n A plaintiff suing under the Rehabilitation Act can assert \\nthat she was intentionally discriminated against or that the \\ndefendant failed to afford her a reasonable accommodation \\nfor her disability. The Rehabilitation Act does not contain an \\nexplicit accommodation requirement, but the Supreme Court \\nhas located a duty to accommodate in the statute generally. \\nWe have written that in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 \\n(1985), \\n the Court explained that “‘a refusal to modify \\n an existing program might become unreasona‐\\n ble and discriminatory.’” Id. at 300 (quoting \\n Southeastern Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, \\n 413 (1979)). The Rehabilitation Act’s promise of \\n “meaningful access” to state benefits, according \\n to the Court, means that “reasonable accommo‐\\n dations in the grantee’s program or benefit may \\n have to be made.” Id. at 301. \\nWisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 465 \\nF.3d 737, 747 (7th Cir. 2006). We explained further: \\n\\f22 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\n Following Choate, several courts of appeals have \\n adopted the view that the Rehabilitation Act re‐\\n quires public entities to modify federally as‐\\n sisted programs if such a modification is neces‐\\n sary to ensure that the disabled have equal ac‐\\n cess to the benefits of that program. See, e.g., \\n Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 274–75 \\n (2d Cir. 2003). These circuits, including ours, \\n also follow the corollary principle implicit in the \\n Choate decision that the Rehabilitation Act helps \\n disabled individuals obtain access to benefits \\n only when they would have difficulty obtaining \\n those benefits “by reason of” their disabilities, \\n and not because of some quality that they share \\n generally with the public. \\nId. at 748. \\n 2. Analysis of the Rehabilitation Act Claims \\n We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary \\njudgment on the merits. Whitaker, 849 F.3d at 684. Summary \\njudgment is proper when the moving party shows that there \\nis no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is en‐\\ntitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). \\n We reverse the dismissal of Reed’s intentional discrimina‐\\ntion claim, which is based only on the seclusion‐room inci‐\\ndent. The district court determined that the undisputed facts \\nshow that the “seclusion incident” was motivated at least in \\npart by factors other than Reed’s disability. The court stated \\nthat Reed “admits that she spilled her coffee and thereafter \\nfell to the floor screaming. She further concedes that Miller \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 23\\n\\ntold her that she could not remain on the floor in the middle \\nof the hallway. (Docket # 55 ¶ 43).” Reed, 236 F. Supp. at 1106. \\n The district court either misconstrued or exaggerated \\nReed’s concessions. Reed has not conceded any of the reasons \\nMiller cited for taking her to the seclusion room. The district \\ncourt did not include a record citation for its assertion that \\nReed admitted she fell to the floor “screaming.” We have not \\nseen such an admission in the record. Reed admits that she \\nspilled coffee and was on the floor of the hallway. She specif‐\\nically denies she was screaming. See Dkt. 55, ¶¶ 38–45, citing \\nReed Affidavit, Ex. A, Dkt. 55‐26. According to the district \\ncourt, this disturbance at least partially motivated the hospital \\nstaff to put her in seclusion. \\n The undisputed facts show that Reed spilled coffee on her‐\\nself and was on the floor of the hallway. We agree with the \\ndistrict court that Miller was responding to this situation (and \\nnot solely to Reed’s disabilities) when he picked her up off the \\nfloor. So far, so good. But Miller himself testified that, at that \\npoint, he started to take Reed back to her own room (not the \\nseclusion room). It was only during the walk to her room that, \\nbecause of her screaming, the decision was made to take her \\nto the seclusion room. Thus, a jury could find that nothing \\nReed has conceded (spilling coffee and lying on the floor) led \\nMiller to take her to the seclusion room. Spilling the coffee \\nand lying on the floor prompted Miller only to take Reed back \\nto her own room. It was the action that Reed specifically de‐\\nnies (screaming during the walk) that Miller says led him and \\nFry to take Reed to the seclusion room. Reed has not conceded \\nthat she did anything disruptive during the walk to her room, \\nwhen hospital staff decided to take her to the seclusion room. \\nThe material facts that led to her being placed in seclusion are \\n\\f24 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\ndisputed. Crediting Reed’s version of the event, a reasonable \\njury could find that the hospital intentionally discriminated \\nagainst Reed solely on the basis of her disability.6 \\n We also reverse the dismissal of Reed’s reasonable accom‐\\nmodation claim. This claim is based on all of the allegations \\nReed asserts in her complaint (seclusion‐room incident; with‐\\nholding Dynavox; security escort off the premises; and denial \\nof requests to use telephone, to see a chaplain, and to see med‐\\nical records). While medical professionals certainly are enti‐\\ntled to discretion in managing their patients, the hospital has \\nnot argued that it withheld the Dynavox in the exercise of pro‐\\nfessional judgment to treat Reed’s mental illness. Withhold‐\\ning the Dynavox in particular may support a viable failure‐to‐\\n\\n \\n 6 The parties have not addressed another issue that may arise on re‐\\n\\nmand. The Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act do \\nnot create a remedy for medical malpractice. See Grzan v. Charter Hosp., \\n104 F.3d 116, 122–23 (7th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds as stated \\nin Amundson v. Wisc. Dep’t of Health Svcs., 721 F.3d 871, 874 (7th Cir. 2013); \\nBryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996) (prisoner’s claim); ac‐\\ncord, e.g., McGugan v. Aldana‐Bernier, 752 F.3d 224, 231–32 (2d Cir. 2014); \\nBurger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882, 883 (8th Cir. 2005); Schiavo ex rel. Schindler \\nv. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2005); Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corp. \\nof America, 403 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005). As the Second Circuit ex‐\\nplained in McGugan, the term “discrimination” can have a benign (and \\nperfectly lawful) sense, in which a health care provider makes a discrimi‐\\nnating professional judgment about the type of treatment to provide to a \\npatient, but can also have a pejorative sense that describes actions taken \\nbased on irrelevant criteria under the influence of irrational bias. See 752 \\nF.3d at 231–32, comparing United States v. University Hosp., 729 F.2d 144, \\n156 (2d Cir. 1984), and Green v. City of New York, 465 F.3d 65, 78 (2d Cir. \\n2006). In this appeal, the hospital has not argued that it withheld Reed’s \\nDynavox from her as a benign form of discrimination, i.e., as an exercise \\nof medical judgment for her appropriate treatment. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 25\\n\\naccommodate claim under the Rehabilitation Act, subject to \\nthe considerations discussed above in note 6. \\n The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of \\nthe hospital is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for \\nproceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, Circuit \\nRule 36 shall apply.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4366303/\", \"author_raw\": \"David Frank Hamilton\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589050/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Linda Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐1469 \nLINDA REED, \n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \n v. \n\nCOLUMBIA ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL, \n Defendant‐Appellee. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Eastern District of Wisconsin. \n No. 14‐CV‐330 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit \nJudges. \n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff‐appellant Linda Reed al‐\nleges that she suffered discrimination on the basis of her dis‐\nabilities while she was a patient at defendant‐appellee Colum‐\nbia St. Mary’s Hospital in March 2012. Among other things, \nshe contends that the hospital failed to accommodate her dis‐\nabilities by deliberately withholding from her a device she \nused to speak and discriminated against her by putting her in \n\f2 No. 17‐1469 \n\na “seclusion” room to punish her. She brought claims under \nTitle III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 \nU.S.C. § 12181, which governs public accommodations of‐\nfered by private entities, including hospitals, as well as Sec‐\ntion 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Wis‐\nconsin Mental Health Act, Wis. Stat. § 51.61. \n The district court granted the hospital’s motion for sum‐\nmary judgment, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice \nand declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the \nremaining state‐law claims. Reed v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hospi‐\ntal, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1091 (E.D. Wis. 2017). The court held that \nthe hospital did not need to comply with Title III of the ADA \nbecause it fell within the Act’s exemption for entities con‐\ntrolled by religious organizations. Id. at 1103–04, citing 42 \nU.S.C. § 12187. The court also dismissed Reed’s Rehabilitation \nAct claims, finding that the hospital’s alleged mistreatment of \nReed was not premised solely on Reed’s disability. Id. at 1105–\n08. \n We reverse. The hospital raised its religious exemption af‐\nfirmative defense to the ADA claims for the first time after \ndiscovery, in its motion for summary judgment. We explain \nbelow why we conclude it was an abuse of discretion to ex‐\ncuse the hospital’s failure to raise this affirmative defense ear‐\nlier. We also reverse the dismissal of Reed’s Rehabilitation Act \nclaims on the merits because they depend on disputed facts. \nI. Factual & Procedural Background \n A. Reed’s Stay in the Hospital \n Our statement of facts reflects our standard of review for \na grant of summary judgment. We cannot vouch for the ob‐\njective truth of every detail. We review the facts and draw all \n\fNo. 17‐1469 3\n\ninferences from conflicting evidence in the light reasonably \nmost favorable to Reed as the non‐moving party. Greengrass \nv. International Monetary Systems Ltd., 776 F.3d 481, 485 (7th \nCir. 2015). \n Reed suffers from several disabilities, including tardive \ndyskinesia (“TD”), bipolar disorder, and post‐traumatic stress \ndisorder. TD is a neurological disorder that causes involun‐\ntary facial and limb movements and makes speaking difficult. \nReed has been prescribed a portable communication device \ncalled a Dynavox that she can use to generate speech. \n Reed entered the hospital’s emergency department on \nMarch 8, 2012. She reported suicidal thoughts. She was admit‐\nted to the inpatient behavioral health unit and left on March \n12. Reed alleges that during her four‐day stay at the hospital \nshe was discriminated against in multiple ways. She claims \nthat she was denied the use of her Dynavox; that hospital staff \nattempted to give her medication she was allergic to; that she \nwas denied timely access to her medical records; that she was \ndenied the use of a telephone to call her case manager (about \nwhom the record reveals little); that she was denied access to \na chaplain; and that she was physically escorted off the prem‐\nises by two security guards. Notably, the hospital’s corporate \nrepresentative and nursing supervisor, William Fry, testified \nin his deposition that the Dynavox was locked up outside \nReed’s room at night and that she had access to it during the \nday only “as long as her behavior was appropriate.” \n The most severe of Reed’s allegations is that on March 11, \nhospital staff refused to give her the Dynavox and took her to \na seclusion room, where she was dropped on a mattress on \nthe floor and later attempted suicide. Reed and the hospital \ngive differing accounts of what exactly took place during this \n\f4 No. 17‐1469 \n\nincident. Reed claims that she asked for her Dynavox, that \nhospital staff refused to give it to her, that her TD‐related \nmovements caused her to spill coffee on herself and to fall to \nthe ground, and that patient‐care assistant Andrew Miller \ngrabbed her and put her in the seclusion room for about two \nhours. Miller testified, on the other hand, that Reed was on \nthe ground in a hallway crying and he told her she needed to \nget out of the hallway. When he was walking her back to her \nroom, he claims, she began to scream and he and nursing su‐\npervisor Fry decided to take her to the seclusion room. On re‐\nview of a grant of summary judgment for the defendant, of \ncourse, we must accept the plaintiff’s version of events. Reed \nwas discharged the day after this incident. According to Reed, \nher Dynavox and other possessions were thrown into a cab, \nand she was pushed into it by a security guard and sent off. \n B. The District Court Proceedings \n Reed filed her first complaint pro se in February 2014. The \ndistrict court dismissed that case without prejudice. The next \nmonth, Reed filed this new lawsuit, which the court construed \nas raising claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. \nThe district court dismissed again, holding that the dismissal \nof the prior suit had preclusive effect and alternatively that \nReed failed to state a claim. Reed appealed pro se. We vacated \nand remanded because the first case had been dismissed with‐\nout prejudice and thus did not preclude the second. Reed v. \nColumbia St. Mary’s Hospital, 782 F.3d 331, 335–36 (7th Cir. \n2015). We also held that Reed stated viable claims under the \nADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 337. \n On remand, the district court recruited counsel for Reed. \nHer amended complaint asserted claims under the ADA for \nintentional discrimination, denial of reasonable modification, \n\fNo. 17‐1469 5\n\nand retaliation and intimidation; claims under the Rehabilita‐\ntion Act for intentional discrimination and denial of reasona‐\nble accommodation; and patients’‐rights claims under Wis‐\nconsin state law. The hospital filed answers to both the origi‐\nnal complaint and the amended complaint. Each answer as‐\nserted several affirmative defenses. Neither answer men‐\ntioned a religious exemption from the ADA. Discovery was \nconducted from September 2015 to August 2016. In October \n2016, the hospital moved for summary judgment, which the \ndistrict court granted. \nII. Analysis \n This appeal presents one procedural issue and a cluster of \nsubstantive issues. The procedural issue is whether the dis‐\ntrict court abused its discretion in allowing the hospital to \nraise for the first time on summary judgment the affirmative \ndefense of the ADA’s Title III religious exemption. The sub‐\nstantive issues concern the merits of the Rehabilitation Act \nclaims. \n A. The ADA Claims \n 1. The Religious Exemption Defense Under ADA Title III \n Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination by \n“public accommodations,” including hospitals. See 42 U.S.C. \n§ 12181(7). Title III provides: “No individual shall be discrim‐\ninated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal \nenjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, ad‐\nvantages, or accommodations of any place of public accom‐\nmodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). It is unlawful to “fail[] to take \nsuch steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual \nwith a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or \notherwise treated differently than other individuals because \n\f6 No. 17‐1469 \n\nof the absence of auxiliary aids and services,” unless the de‐\nfendant can show that such accommodation “would funda‐\nmentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privi‐\nlege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would \nresult in an undue burden.” § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). A physical \nor mental impairment that “substantially limits one or more \nmajor life activities,” including “speaking,” qualifies as a dis‐\nability under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act (dis‐\ncussed below). See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), (2)(A); 29 U.S.C. \n§ 705(20)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(j)(2)(ii); 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(ii). \n Title III of the ADA applies generally to hospitals, but Title \nIII exempts from its requirements “religious organizations” \nand “entities controlled by religious organizations, including \nplaces of worship.” 42 U.S.C. § 12187. This exemption is an \naffirmative defense. A defendant invoking it must plead it in \nthe answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c); Castro v. Chicago Housing \nAuthority, 360 F.3d 721, 735 (7th Cir. 2004). Rule 8(c) applies to \n“any avoidance or affirmative defense,” and lists a number of \nparticular defenses that must be pleaded. The religious ex‐\nemption in Title III of the ADA is an affirmative defense be‐\ncause it assumes the plaintiff can prove everything she must \nto establish her claim but may still act to defeat her claim.1 \n It makes sense for the defendant claiming the Title III reli‐\ngious exemption to bear the burden of pleading and proving \nits religious control. We have said that a defense not listed in \nRule 8(c) is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded if the \n \n 1 “An affirmative defense is one that admits the allegations in the com‐\n\nplaint, but avoids liability, in whole or in part, by new allegations of ex‐\ncuse, justification or other negating matters.” Divine v. Volunteers of Amer‐\nica of Illinois, 319 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1003 (N.D. Ill. 2018), quoting Riemer v. \nChase Bank USA, N.A., 274 F.R.D. 637, 639 (N.D. Ill. 2011). \n\fNo. 17‐1469 7\n\ndefendant bears the burden of proof on the issue under state \nlaw or if the defense does not controvert the plaintiff’s proof. \nWinforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856, 872 (7th \nCir. 2012). The religious exemption defense does not contro‐\nvert the plaintiff’s proof. It also draws on facts ordinarily \nwithin the knowledge and control of the defendant. See Gomez \nv. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640–41 (1980) (qualified immunity is \naffirmative defense under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; relevant facts are \npeculiarly within knowledge and control of defendant); \nWright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1271. An \nADA plaintiff should not need to spend the money to antici‐\npate this defense without fair and timely notice that the de‐\nfendant intends to rely upon it. \n 2. Consequences of Failure to Plead a Defense \n A defendant’s failure to plead an affirmative defense may \nresult in a waiver of the defense if the defendant has relin‐\nquished it knowingly and intelligently, or forfeiture if the de‐\nfendant merely failed to preserve the defense by pleading it. \nSee Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 470 & n.4 (2012). Some of \nour opinions use the terms waiver and forfeiture interchange‐\nably, but Wood shows that we need to pay attention to the dif‐\nference. Whether courts apply waiver or forfeiture in re‐\nsponse to a failure to plead, the purpose of the pleading re‐\nquirement for an affirmative defense “is to avoid surprise and \nundue prejudice to the plaintiff by providing her notice and \nthe opportunity to demonstrate why the defense should not \nprevail.” Venters v. City of Delphi, 123 F.3d 956, 967 (7th Cir. \n1997). \n We have explained, however, that “the rule that forfeits an \naffirmative defense not pleaded in the answer (or by an earlier \nmotion) is, we want to make clear, not to be applied rigidly.” \n\f8 No. 17‐1469 \n\nGarofalo v. Village of Hazel Crest, 754 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. \n2014), citing Matthews v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., Inc., 642 F.3d \n565, 570 (7th Cir. 2011). We will generally find that the failure \nto plead an affirmative defense in the answer works a forfei‐\nture “only if the plaintiff is harmed by the defendant’s delay \nin asserting it.” Id. There are limits, though, and in exercising \ntheir discretion in such matters, district courts must be alert \nto the real and practical harms that can result from failures to \nplead. We have explained that \n the district court has the discretion to allow an \n answer to be amended to assert an affirmative \n defense not raised at the outset. The pertinence \n of a particular defense may only become appar‐\n ent after discovery, for example, in which case it \n would be reasonable for the court to permit the \n belated assertion of that defense. Nonetheless, \n the defendant remains obligated to act in timely \n fashion. Once the availability of an affirmative \n defense is reasonably apparent, the defendant \n must alert the parties and the court to his intent \n to pursue that defense. A defendant should not \n be permitted to “lie behind a log” and ambush \n a plaintiff with an unexpected defense. The ap‐\n propriate thing for the defendant to do, of \n course, is to promptly seek the court’s leave to \n amend his answer. His failure to do [so] risks a \n finding that he has waived the defense. \nVenters, 123 F.3d at 967–68 (internal citations and quotation \nmarks omitted). \n Pleadings shape the litigation, including the scope and \ncost of discovery. Based on the claims and defenses raised in \n\fNo. 17‐1469 9\n\nthe pleadings, the parties can discover information that is rel‐\nevant, not privileged, and proportional to the needs of the \ncase. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Many efficiencies are lost when \nclaims or defenses are left out of pleadings and a party then \nattempts to assert them at later stages. At the same time, it is \nnot unusual for parties to discover new theories for claims or \ndefenses in the course of discovery. Timely motions to amend \npleadings for such newly discovered theories are appropriate \nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). \n We see these problems more often when plaintiffs try to \nraise new theories or claims for the first time in opposing sum‐\nmary judgment. The concerns about unfair surprise and prej‐\nudice with unpleaded affirmative defenses are similar: \n When a new argument is made in summary \n judgment briefing, the correct first step is to con‐\n sider whether it changes the complaint’s factual \n theory, or just the legal theories [the] plaintiff \n has pursued so far. In the former situation, the \n plaintiff may be attempting in effect to amend \n its complaint, and the district court has discre‐\n tion to deny the de facto amendment and to re‐\n fuse to consider the new factual claims. In the \n latter, the court should consider the conse‐\n quences of allowing the plaintiff’s new theory. \n If it would, for example, cause unreasonable de‐\n lay, or make it more costly or difficult to defend \n the suit, the district court can and should hold \n the plaintiff to his original theory. \nBRC Rubber & Plastics, Inc. v. Cont’l Carbon Co., 900 F.3d 529, \n540 (7th Cir. 2018) (citations and internal quotation marks \n\f10 No. 17‐1469 \n\nomitted), quoting Chessie Logistics Co. v. Krinos Holdings, Inc., \n867 F.3d 852, 860 (7th Cir. 2017). \n We routinely enforce this stricture against plaintiffs who \nwait until summary‐judgment briefing to raise a new claim, \ndespite the absence of an express pleading requirement, since \ncomplaints need not identify legal theories. See, e.g., Anderson \nv. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989, 997 (7th Cir. 2012) (pro se plaintiff); \nWhitaker v. Milwaukee County, 772 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2014); \nTrade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., 573 F.3d 401, 412 (7th \nCir. 2009); Conner v. Illinois Dep’t of Natural Resources, 413 F.3d \n675, 679–80 (7th Cir. 2005); Griffin v. Potter, 356 F.3d 824, 830 \n(7th Cir. 2004); Grayson v. O’Neill, 308 F.3d 808, 817 (7th Cir. \n2002); Whitaker v. T.J. Snow Co., 151 F.3d 661, 663–64 (7th Cir. \n1998); Auston v. Schubnell, 116 F.3d 251, 255 (7th Cir. 1997); \nShanahan v. City of Chicago, 82 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir. 1996); \nKostovetsky v. Ambit Energy Holdings, LLC, 242 F. Supp. 3d 708, \n718–19 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (reviewing Seventh Circuit case law). \nIn much the same way, late assertions of affirmative de‐\nfenses—like the religious exemption to Title III of the ADA—\nmake litigation more costly and difficult and can make it un‐\nfairly difficult for a plaintiff to pursue her claims. \n 3. The District Court’s Ruling \n The district court held that the hospital did not waive or \nforfeit its religious exemption affirmative defense. The court \nacknowledged that the hospital raised the defense for the first \ntime in its motion for summary judgment but explained that \nsince this defense is not expressly listed in Federal Rule of \nCivil Procedure 8(c), “it is not clear that failure to assert it in \nthe answer waives it.” 236 F. Supp. 3d at 1101. That rationale \nwill not hold water here. Precedent offers sufficiently clear \nguidance on when defenses not enumerated in Rule 8(c) must \n\fNo. 17‐1469 11\n\nbe pleaded. See, e.g., Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640–41 \n(1980); Winforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856, \n872 (7th Cir. 2012); Sundstrand Corp. v. Standard Kollsman In‐\ndustries, Inc., 488 F.2d 807, 813 (7th Cir. 1973); Brunswick Leas‐\ning Corp. v. Wisconsin Cent., Ltd., 136 F.3d 521, 530 (7th Cir. \n1998). The statutory exemption here is based on facts in a de‐\nfendant’s control and clearly falls within the category of af‐\nfirmative defenses. \n The district court also held that Reed was not prejudiced \nby the hospital’s delay in asserting this defense. For support, \nthe court relied on an exchange during the deposition of nurs‐\ning supervisor William Fry in February 2016, six months be‐\nfore the close of discovery, to find that Reed knew “for a sub‐\nstantial period that the religious exemption defense was a \npossibility.” Reed, 236 F. Supp. 3d at 1101. We respectfully dis‐\nagree. Here is the entire discussion from Fry’s deposition: \n Q And so who – what is your understanding of \n the ownership of Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital \n Milwaukee? \n MR. FOLEY: Object to form and foundation. \n THE WITNESS: I don’t really know the answer \n to that. I don’t really understand – I don’t know \n the answer to that. \n BY MS. BARNES: Who owns the organization? \n MR. FOLEY: Object to form and foundation. \n THE WITNESS: I’ll try to answer that. Ascen‐\n sion Healthcare is our parent sponsor of this \n ministry. \n\f12 No. 17‐1469 \n\n BY MS. BARNES: What does that mean, spon‐\n sor? \n MR. FOLEY: Object to form. \n THE WITNESS: Ascension Healthcare has mul‐\n tiple hospitals in multiple states across the \n country. That is, again, our – as far as I under‐\n stand it, our parent ownership structure. \n BY MS. BARNES: Okay. And is Ascension a re‐\n ligious organization? \n A Yes. \n Q What type of religious organization? \n A It’s a mission of the Roman Catholic Church. \n Q A mission? \n A Um‐hum. \n Q So is it – is it – \n A A ministry, I should have said. I ministry of \n the Roman Catholic Church. \n Q So is it – does it follow the principles of the \n Catholic church, when you say “ministry”? \n MR. FOLEY: I’ll object to form and foundation. \n I think this is far afield of – \n THE WITNESS: Yeah, this is beyond my \n knowledge and expertise. \n MR. FOLEY: – his knowledge. But if you can an‐\n swer, go ahead. \n\fNo. 17‐1469 13\n\n THE WITNESS: As far as I know, yes. I guess I \n don’t really understand the question. \n BY MS. BARNES: What does it mean to be a \n ministry, I guess? I’m trying to understand it as \n well. \n A Well, we’re a not for profit in the ministry of \n providing healthcare. \nFry Dep. at 13–15. \n This brief exchange was with a witness who obviously did \nnot understand the issue or identify the exemption, let alone \ntry to assert the exemption. It is not comparable to a lawyer’s \nstatement that the party intends to assert a defense. The ex‐\nchange did not put Reed on fair notice that the hospital would \nbe asserting the religious exemption and that she needed to \nspend the time and money to conduct full‐bore discovery on \nwhether the hospital could satisfy the ADA’s religious ex‐\nemption. \n The district court also thought that Reed knew when she \nfiled suit that the hospital was at least nominally associated \nwith the Catholic faith. Nominal association told plaintiff and \ntells us nothing about the availability of the religious exemp‐\ntion. The statutory test is “control.” 42 U.S.C. § 12187. Count‐\nless entities have names that are associated with religions but \nare not subject to religious control. \n Finally, the district court noted that Reed’s response to the \nhospital’s motion for summary judgment showed that she \nhad studied the hospital’s corporate structure and governing \ndocuments (or at least those submitted by the hospital). We \n\f14 No. 17‐1469 \n\nhave a limited record before us on this issue.2 The structure \nappears to be as follows: the hospital’s sole corporate member \nis Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. In turn, Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. \nis “sponsored by” its two corporate members: Ascension \nHealth (a Catholic national health system) and Columbia \nHealth System, Inc. (a non‐sectarian community health sys‐\ntem). Ascension Health is a subsidiary of Ascension Health \nAlliance, which is a subsidiary of Ascension Health Minis‐\ntries. The Congregation of Consecrated Life and Societies of \nApostolic Life of the Vatican conferred public juridic person‐\nality on Ascension Health Ministries in June 2011. Ascension \nHealth Ministries’ governing documents state that it shall be \ngoverned in accordance with canon law. Thus, the hospital is \nsubject to two lines of control: (1) a Catholic one (Ascension \nHealth Ministries —> Ascension Health Alliance —> Ascen‐\nsion Health —> Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. —> the hospital); \nand (2) a non‐sectarian one (Columbia Health System —> Co‐\nlumbia St. Mary’s Inc. —> the hospital). \n The hospital’s bylaws reflect these two lines of control: \nthey say that the hospital “shall be and remain a Catholic fa‐\ncility or institution” but also that the hospital will “respect the \nnonsectarian traditions and values of Columbia Health Sys‐\ntem.” Similarly reflecting these two lines of control but revers‐\ning the emphasis, the bylaws of Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. (the \nhospital’s sole corporate member) say that it “shall not be a \nCatholic facility or institution” but that it will not perform \n\n \n 2 The record is limited since this defense was sprung on Reed in the \n\nmotion for summary judgment. Most of the relevant evidence comes from \nthe documents the hospital chose to submit. Even those documents show \na complicated corporate legal structure and an ambiguous relationship \nwith the hospital’s Catholic affiliates. \n\fNo. 17‐1469 15\n\nmedical procedures inconsistent with Catholic ethical direc‐\ntives. Columbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s bylaws reserve certain pow‐\ners to both Ascension Health and Columbia Health System.3 \nColumbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s officers and board members “serve \nex officio” as the hospital’s officers and board members. Im‐\nportant for the issue of control, the board members are recom‐\nmended by Columbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s existing board for ap‐\npointment by Ascension Health and are intended to “be \nbroadly representative of the communities served.” Relying \non this corporate structure as disclosed by the hospital in its \nsummary judgment materials, the district court determined \nthat the hospital was sufficiently controlled by the Catholic \nChurch as to fall within Title III’s religious exemption and to \nmake it immune to Reed’s ADA claims. \n 4. Abuse of Discretion \n We express no opinion on whether, after full discovery \nand fair litigation of the issue on a more complete record, the \nhospital might fit within the exemption for entities controlled \nby religious organizations. Instead, we find that the district \ncourt abused its discretion by considering this affirmative de‐\nfense at all. \n Several factors point in this direction. First, the defendant \nhospital has offered no excuse or explanation for failing to \nplead the defense in it answers or for raising the defense so \nlate. Without a credible excuse for the delay, the hospital’s late \ninvocation of the defense looks like a straight ambush of the \nplaintiff when it was too late for her to put together a \n \n 3 We are told that these dual lines of control are also detailed in the \n\nterms of an Affiliation Agreement, but that document has not been pro‐\nduced to Reed or included in the record. \n\f16 No. 17‐1469 \n\ncomprehensive rebuttal. Second, the religious‐exemption de‐\nfense should not ordinarily depend on discovery from the \nplaintiff, as will often be the case with other affirmative de‐\nfenses such as statutes of limitations, estoppels, waivers, and \nothers. Instead, the religious‐exemption defense will ordinar‐\nily depend on facts within the knowledge and control of the \ndefendant itself. Third, the defendant did not deploy this de‐\nfense until after discovery had closed, meaning both parties \nhad already invested a good deal of time and money in the \ncase on the legitimate expectation that they knew what the is‐\nsues were. Allowing a last‐minute defense that introduces \nsuch new factual and legal issues after discovery has closed \nraises the costs of litigation and allows the party that was at \nleast negligent in failing to plead its defense to take unfair ad‐\nvantage of its opposing party. Fourth, the district court’s ra‐\ntionale for allowing the defense to be raised so late simply \ndoes not withstand scrutiny. In this case, a few facts relevant \nto this potential affirmative defense came up briefly in one \ndeposition. As we explained above, that cannot be reasonably \ntreated as fair notice that the hospital would actually assert \nthe defense and that the plaintiff would need to spend the \ntime and money needed to meet that defense. The plaintiff \nwas entitled to rely on Rule 8(c) and the hospital’s silence in \nits pleadings. \n The situation here is similar to that in Venters v. City of Del‐\nphi, where we concluded that the defendants waived their \nstatute of limitations affirmative defense. 123 F.3d 956, 967–69 \n(7th Cir. 1997). There, the defendants failed to include the de‐\nfense in their answers to the original and amended com‐\nplaints. We could “discern no justification for the delay” when \nthey asserted the defense for the first time in their reply mem‐\norandum in support of their motion for summary judgment. \n\fNo. 17‐1469 17\n\nId. at 968. While a difference here is that Reed was at least \ngiven notice of the defense in the motion for summary judg‐\nment itself and could attempt to respond, she was still at a \nserious disadvantage. That notice came after the parties had \ncompleted discovery. As in Venters, we “cannot overlook the \nfailure to comply with Rule 8(c) in this context. Intentionally \nor not, [plaintiff] was bushwacked.” Id. at 969. Put simply, “it \nwas not [plaintiff’s] obligation to raise the defense, and if Rule \n8(c) is not to become a nullity, we must not countenance at‐\ntempts to invoke such defenses at the eleventh hour, without \nexcuse and without adequate notice to the plaintiff.” Id.4 \n Finally, the prejudice to Reed from the delayed assertion \nof the defense is especially acute here because the relevant law \nand facts simply are not clear. The ADA does not define what \nit means to be considered a “religious organization” or to be \n“controlled by a religious organization.” See 42 U.S.C. § \n12187. To our knowledge, no federal appellate court has yet \nconstrued this religious exemption. Several district courts \nhave—including the veteran judge who decided this case. \nSee Rose v. Cahee, 727 F. Supp. 2d 728, 747 (E.D. Wis. 2010).5 \n\n \n 4 In contrast, we held that a district court did not abuse its discretion \n\nin Robinson v. Sappington when it allowed the defendants to amend their \npleadings at summary judgment to add affirmative defenses. 351 F.3d 317, \n332–33 (7th Cir. 2003). There, the record showed that the plaintiff had suf‐\nficient notice that the defendants might pursue the defenses because de‐\nfense counsel had explored them in detail during discovery. Id. Further, \nthe plaintiff did not suggest she was prejudiced in any way by the late \namendment. Id. \n 5 In Rose, the court applied the religious exemption where a Roman \n\nCatholic institute sponsored a healthcare corporation and occupied a pri‐\nmary role in the corporation’s corporate governance structure, the insti‐\ntute members made up the entirety of one class of corporate membership, \n\f18 No. 17‐1469 \n\nThese district court decisions show that the issue can be com‐\nplex, both factually and legally. These decisions have cited \nand relied on the following Department of Justice interpreta‐\ntion of the religious exemption: \n The ADA’s exemption of religious organiza‐\n tions and religious entities controlled by reli‐\n gious organizations is very broad, encompass‐\n ing a wide variety of situations. Religious or‐\n ganizations and entities controlled by religious \n organizations have no obligations under the \n ADA. Even when a religious organization car‐\n ries out activities that would otherwise make it \n a public accommodation, the religious organi‐\n zation is exempt from ADA coverage. Thus, if a \n church itself operates a day care center, a \n\n \nand the institute’s class members had the sole authority to amend or re‐\npeal the corporation’s articles of incorporation and bylaws. 727 F. Supp. \n2d at 747. As for the other district court cases applying the exemption, \nReed correctly points out that in none was the defense raised late, and in \nall there was greater evidence of religious control. See Cole v. Saint Francis \nMedical Ctr., No. 1:15‐CV‐98(ACL), 2016 WL 7474988, at *4‐6 (E.D. Mo. \nDec. 29, 2016) (exemption was “properly raised by Defendant as an affirm‐\native defense” and hospital was “under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of \nthe Roman Catholic Dioceses[.]”); Marshall v. Sisters of the Holy Family of \nNazareth, 399 F. Supp. 2d 597, 606 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (school “solely operated \nand controlled by” order of nuns); White v. Denver Seminary, 157 F. Supp. \n2d 1171, 1173–74 (D. Colo. 2001) (seminary was founded by Baptist asso‐\nciation and employees were required to be active Christians). By contrast, \nin Sloan v. Community Christian Day School, LLC, a Christian school was \nfound to not be exempt since the school was not owned, affiliated with, or \nfinancially supported by any recognized religious group and was instead \nowned by two individuals who were not ministers. No. 3–15–0551, 2015 \nWL 10437824, at * 3, (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 11, 2015). \n\fNo. 17‐1469 19\n\n nursing home, a private school, or a diocesan \n school system, the operations of the center, \n home, school, or schools would not be subject to \n the requirements of the ADA or this part. The \n religious entity would not lose its exemption \n merely because the services provided were \n open to the general public. The test is whether \n the church or other religious organization oper‐\n ates the public accommodation, not which indi‐\n viduals receive the public accommodationʹs ser‐\n vices. \n Religious entities that are controlled by reli‐\n gious organizations are also exempt from the \n ADA’s requirements. Many religious organiza‐\n tions in the United States use lay boards and \n other secular or corporate mechanisms to oper‐\n ate schools and an array of social services. The \n use of a lay board or other mechanism does not \n itself remove the ADA’s religious exemption. \n Thus, a parochial school, having religious doc‐\n trine in its curriculum and sponsored by a reli‐\n gious order, could be exempt either as a reli‐\n gious organization or as an entity controlled by \n a religious organization, even if it has a lay \n board. The test remains a factual one – whether the \n church or other religious organization controls the \n operations of the school or of the service or whether \n the school or service is itself a religious organization. \n28 C.F.R. ch. 1., pt. 36, App’x C (emphasis added). \n For this appeal, the critical points are that the law govern‐\ning the hospital’s affirmative defense is still highly contestable \n\f20 No. 17‐1469 \n\nand its application may well depend on a host of facts that \nwould need to be explored in some depth. Before summary \njudgment briefing, plaintiff Reed had no notice that she \nneeded to prepare to meet the defense. \n We have considered the possibility of a response less dras‐\ntic than treating the hospital’s religious‐exemption defense as \nforfeited. One possibility would be to allow the parties to pur‐\nsue further discovery on that issue and to have the hospital \npay for plaintiff’s reasonable costs and attorney fees for that \nprocess. In this case, however, the hospital has offered no \ncredible excuse for its delay, and the normal rule is forfeiture \nof unpleaded defenses. The remedy of reopening discovery \nwould also impose additional delay on Reed. We see no miti‐\ngating factors here that would favor anything other than en‐\nforcement of Rule 8(c) as written and treating the defense as \nforfeited. We therefore reverse summary judgment for the \nhospital on the ADA claims. \n B. Rehabilitation Act Claims \n 1. Legal Standard \n We now turn to the merits of Reed’s Rehabilitation Act \nclaims. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides: “No \notherwise qualified individual with a disability … shall, \nsolely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the \nparticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to \ndiscrimination under any program or activity receiving Fed‐\neral financial assistance[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Four elements \nmust be satisfied to establish a violation of Section 504: (1) the \nplaintiff must be a handicapped individual as defined by the \nAct; (2) the plaintiff must be “otherwise qualified” for partic‐\nipation in the program; (3) the program must receive federal \n\fNo. 17‐1469 21\n\nfinancial assistance; and (4) the plaintiff must have been “de‐\nnied the benefits of the program solely because of his handi‐\ncap.” See Mallet v. Wisconsin Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation, \n130 F.3d 1245, 1257 (7th Cir. 1997). The hospital contests only \nthis fourth element of sole cause. The ADA and the Rehabili‐\ntation Act are otherwise very similar, but the Rehabilitation \nAct prohibits discrimination only if it is “solely by reason of” \na person’s disability. The ADA permits mixed‐motive claims. \nSee Whitaker v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Health Servs., 849 F.3d 681, \n684 (7th Cir. 2017). \n A plaintiff suing under the Rehabilitation Act can assert \nthat she was intentionally discriminated against or that the \ndefendant failed to afford her a reasonable accommodation \nfor her disability. The Rehabilitation Act does not contain an \nexplicit accommodation requirement, but the Supreme Court \nhas located a duty to accommodate in the statute generally. \nWe have written that in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 \n(1985), \n the Court explained that “‘a refusal to modify \n an existing program might become unreasona‐\n ble and discriminatory.’” Id. at 300 (quoting \n Southeastern Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, \n 413 (1979)). The Rehabilitation Act’s promise of \n “meaningful access” to state benefits, according \n to the Court, means that “reasonable accommo‐\n dations in the grantee’s program or benefit may \n have to be made.” Id. at 301. \nWisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 465 \nF.3d 737, 747 (7th Cir. 2006). We explained further: \n\f22 No. 17‐1469 \n\n Following Choate, several courts of appeals have \n adopted the view that the Rehabilitation Act re‐\n quires public entities to modify federally as‐\n sisted programs if such a modification is neces‐\n sary to ensure that the disabled have equal ac‐\n cess to the benefits of that program. See, e.g., \n Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 274–75 \n (2d Cir. 2003). These circuits, including ours, \n also follow the corollary principle implicit in the \n Choate decision that the Rehabilitation Act helps \n disabled individuals obtain access to benefits \n only when they would have difficulty obtaining \n those benefits “by reason of” their disabilities, \n and not because of some quality that they share \n generally with the public. \nId. at 748. \n 2. Analysis of the Rehabilitation Act Claims \n We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary \njudgment on the merits. Whitaker, 849 F.3d at 684. Summary \njudgment is proper when the moving party shows that there \nis no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is en‐\ntitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). \n We reverse the dismissal of Reed’s intentional discrimina‐\ntion claim, which is based only on the seclusion‐room inci‐\ndent. The district court determined that the undisputed facts \nshow that the “seclusion incident” was motivated at least in \npart by factors other than Reed’s disability. The court stated \nthat Reed “admits that she spilled her coffee and thereafter \nfell to the floor screaming. She further concedes that Miller \n\fNo. 17‐1469 23\n\ntold her that she could not remain on the floor in the middle \nof the hallway. (Docket # 55 ¶ 43).” Reed, 236 F. Supp. at 1106. \n The district court either misconstrued or exaggerated \nReed’s concessions. Reed has not conceded any of the reasons \nMiller cited for taking her to the seclusion room. The district \ncourt did not include a record citation for its assertion that \nReed admitted she fell to the floor “screaming.” We have not \nseen such an admission in the record. Reed admits that she \nspilled coffee and was on the floor of the hallway. She specif‐\nically denies she was screaming. See Dkt. 55, ¶¶ 38–45, citing \nReed Affidavit, Ex. A, Dkt. 55‐26. According to the district \ncourt, this disturbance at least partially motivated the hospital \nstaff to put her in seclusion. \n The undisputed facts show that Reed spilled coffee on her‐\nself and was on the floor of the hallway. We agree with the \ndistrict court that Miller was responding to this situation (and \nnot solely to Reed’s disabilities) when he picked her up off the \nfloor. So far, so good. But Miller himself testified that, at that \npoint, he started to take Reed back to her own room (not the \nseclusion room). It was only during the walk to her room that, \nbecause of her screaming, the decision was made to take her \nto the seclusion room. Thus, a jury could find that nothing \nReed has conceded (spilling coffee and lying on the floor) led \nMiller to take her to the seclusion room. Spilling the coffee \nand lying on the floor prompted Miller only to take Reed back \nto her own room. It was the action that Reed specifically de‐\nnies (screaming during the walk) that Miller says led him and \nFry to take Reed to the seclusion room. Reed has not conceded \nthat she did anything disruptive during the walk to her room, \nwhen hospital staff decided to take her to the seclusion room. \nThe material facts that led to her being placed in seclusion are \n\f24 No. 17‐1469 \n\ndisputed. Crediting Reed’s version of the event, a reasonable \njury could find that the hospital intentionally discriminated \nagainst Reed solely on the basis of her disability.6 \n We also reverse the dismissal of Reed’s reasonable accom‐\nmodation claim. This claim is based on all of the allegations \nReed asserts in her complaint (seclusion‐room incident; with‐\nholding Dynavox; security escort off the premises; and denial \nof requests to use telephone, to see a chaplain, and to see med‐\nical records). While medical professionals certainly are enti‐\ntled to discretion in managing their patients, the hospital has \nnot argued that it withheld the Dynavox in the exercise of pro‐\nfessional judgment to treat Reed’s mental illness. Withhold‐\ning the Dynavox in particular may support a viable failure‐to‐\n\n \n 6 The parties have not addressed another issue that may arise on re‐\n\nmand. The Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act do \nnot create a remedy for medical malpractice. See Grzan v. Charter Hosp., \n104 F.3d 116, 122–23 (7th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds as stated \nin Amundson v. Wisc. Dep’t of Health Svcs., 721 F.3d 871, 874 (7th Cir. 2013); \nBryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996) (prisoner’s claim); ac‐\ncord, e.g., McGugan v. Aldana‐Bernier, 752 F.3d 224, 231–32 (2d Cir. 2014); \nBurger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882, 883 (8th Cir. 2005); Schiavo ex rel. Schindler \nv. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2005); Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corp. \nof America, 403 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005). As the Second Circuit ex‐\nplained in McGugan, the term “discrimination” can have a benign (and \nperfectly lawful) sense, in which a health care provider makes a discrimi‐\nnating professional judgment about the type of treatment to provide to a \npatient, but can also have a pejorative sense that describes actions taken \nbased on irrelevant criteria under the influence of irrational bias. See 752 \nF.3d at 231–32, comparing United States v. University Hosp., 729 F.2d 144, \n156 (2d Cir. 1984), and Green v. City of New York, 465 F.3d 65, 78 (2d Cir. \n2006). In this appeal, the hospital has not argued that it withheld Reed’s \nDynavox from her as a benign form of discrimination, i.e., as an exercise \nof medical judgment for her appropriate treatment. \n\fNo. 17‐1469 25\n\naccommodate claim under the Rehabilitation Act, subject to \nthe considerations discussed above in note 6. \n The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of \nthe hospital is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for \nproceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, Circuit \nRule 36 shall apply.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Linda Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐1469 \\nLINDA REED, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \\n v. \\n\\nCOLUMBIA ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL, \\n Defendant‐Appellee. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Eastern District of Wisconsin. \\n No. 14‐CV‐330 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff‐appellant Linda Reed al‐\\nleges that she suffered discrimination on the basis of her dis‐\\nabilities while she was a patient at defendant‐appellee Colum‐\\nbia St. Mary’s Hospital in March 2012. Among other things, \\nshe contends that the hospital failed to accommodate her dis‐\\nabilities by deliberately withholding from her a device she \\nused to speak and discriminated against her by putting her in \\n\\f2 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\na “seclusion” room to punish her. She brought claims under \\nTitle III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 \\nU.S.C. § 12181, which governs public accommodations of‐\\nfered by private entities, including hospitals, as well as Sec‐\\ntion 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Wis‐\\nconsin Mental Health Act, Wis. Stat. § 51.61. \\n The district court granted the hospital’s motion for sum‐\\nmary judgment, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice \\nand declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the \\nremaining state‐law claims. Reed v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hospi‐\\ntal, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1091 (E.D. Wis. 2017). The court held that \\nthe hospital did not need to comply with Title III of the ADA \\nbecause it fell within the Act’s exemption for entities con‐\\ntrolled by religious organizations. Id. at 1103–04, citing 42 \\nU.S.C. § 12187. The court also dismissed Reed’s Rehabilitation \\nAct claims, finding that the hospital’s alleged mistreatment of \\nReed was not premised solely on Reed’s disability. Id. at 1105–\\n08. \\n We reverse. The hospital raised its religious exemption af‐\\nfirmative defense to the ADA claims for the first time after \\ndiscovery, in its motion for summary judgment. We explain \\nbelow why we conclude it was an abuse of discretion to ex‐\\ncuse the hospital’s failure to raise this affirmative defense ear‐\\nlier. We also reverse the dismissal of Reed’s Rehabilitation Act \\nclaims on the merits because they depend on disputed facts. \\nI. Factual & Procedural Background \\n A. Reed’s Stay in the Hospital \\n Our statement of facts reflects our standard of review for \\na grant of summary judgment. We cannot vouch for the ob‐\\njective truth of every detail. We review the facts and draw all \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 3\\n\\ninferences from conflicting evidence in the light reasonably \\nmost favorable to Reed as the non‐moving party. Greengrass \\nv. International Monetary Systems Ltd., 776 F.3d 481, 485 (7th \\nCir. 2015). \\n Reed suffers from several disabilities, including tardive \\ndyskinesia (“TD”), bipolar disorder, and post‐traumatic stress \\ndisorder. TD is a neurological disorder that causes involun‐\\ntary facial and limb movements and makes speaking difficult. \\nReed has been prescribed a portable communication device \\ncalled a Dynavox that she can use to generate speech. \\n Reed entered the hospital’s emergency department on \\nMarch 8, 2012. She reported suicidal thoughts. She was admit‐\\nted to the inpatient behavioral health unit and left on March \\n12. Reed alleges that during her four‐day stay at the hospital \\nshe was discriminated against in multiple ways. She claims \\nthat she was denied the use of her Dynavox; that hospital staff \\nattempted to give her medication she was allergic to; that she \\nwas denied timely access to her medical records; that she was \\ndenied the use of a telephone to call her case manager (about \\nwhom the record reveals little); that she was denied access to \\na chaplain; and that she was physically escorted off the prem‐\\nises by two security guards. Notably, the hospital’s corporate \\nrepresentative and nursing supervisor, William Fry, testified \\nin his deposition that the Dynavox was locked up outside \\nReed’s room at night and that she had access to it during the \\nday only “as long as her behavior was appropriate.” \\n The most severe of Reed’s allegations is that on March 11, \\nhospital staff refused to give her the Dynavox and took her to \\na seclusion room, where she was dropped on a mattress on \\nthe floor and later attempted suicide. Reed and the hospital \\ngive differing accounts of what exactly took place during this \\n\\f4 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nincident. Reed claims that she asked for her Dynavox, that \\nhospital staff refused to give it to her, that her TD‐related \\nmovements caused her to spill coffee on herself and to fall to \\nthe ground, and that patient‐care assistant Andrew Miller \\ngrabbed her and put her in the seclusion room for about two \\nhours. Miller testified, on the other hand, that Reed was on \\nthe ground in a hallway crying and he told her she needed to \\nget out of the hallway. When he was walking her back to her \\nroom, he claims, she began to scream and he and nursing su‐\\npervisor Fry decided to take her to the seclusion room. On re‐\\nview of a grant of summary judgment for the defendant, of \\ncourse, we must accept the plaintiff’s version of events. Reed \\nwas discharged the day after this incident. According to Reed, \\nher Dynavox and other possessions were thrown into a cab, \\nand she was pushed into it by a security guard and sent off. \\n B. The District Court Proceedings \\n Reed filed her first complaint pro se in February 2014. The \\ndistrict court dismissed that case without prejudice. The next \\nmonth, Reed filed this new lawsuit, which the court construed \\nas raising claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. \\nThe district court dismissed again, holding that the dismissal \\nof the prior suit had preclusive effect and alternatively that \\nReed failed to state a claim. Reed appealed pro se. We vacated \\nand remanded because the first case had been dismissed with‐\\nout prejudice and thus did not preclude the second. Reed v. \\nColumbia St. Mary’s Hospital, 782 F.3d 331, 335–36 (7th Cir. \\n2015). We also held that Reed stated viable claims under the \\nADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 337. \\n On remand, the district court recruited counsel for Reed. \\nHer amended complaint asserted claims under the ADA for \\nintentional discrimination, denial of reasonable modification, \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 5\\n\\nand retaliation and intimidation; claims under the Rehabilita‐\\ntion Act for intentional discrimination and denial of reasona‐\\nble accommodation; and patients’‐rights claims under Wis‐\\nconsin state law. The hospital filed answers to both the origi‐\\nnal complaint and the amended complaint. Each answer as‐\\nserted several affirmative defenses. Neither answer men‐\\ntioned a religious exemption from the ADA. Discovery was \\nconducted from September 2015 to August 2016. In October \\n2016, the hospital moved for summary judgment, which the \\ndistrict court granted. \\nII. Analysis \\n This appeal presents one procedural issue and a cluster of \\nsubstantive issues. The procedural issue is whether the dis‐\\ntrict court abused its discretion in allowing the hospital to \\nraise for the first time on summary judgment the affirmative \\ndefense of the ADA’s Title III religious exemption. The sub‐\\nstantive issues concern the merits of the Rehabilitation Act \\nclaims. \\n A. The ADA Claims \\n 1. The Religious Exemption Defense Under ADA Title III \\n Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination by \\n“public accommodations,” including hospitals. See 42 U.S.C. \\n§ 12181(7). Title III provides: “No individual shall be discrim‐\\ninated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal \\nenjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, ad‐\\nvantages, or accommodations of any place of public accom‐\\nmodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). It is unlawful to “fail[] to take \\nsuch steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual \\nwith a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or \\notherwise treated differently than other individuals because \\n\\f6 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nof the absence of auxiliary aids and services,” unless the de‐\\nfendant can show that such accommodation “would funda‐\\nmentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privi‐\\nlege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would \\nresult in an undue burden.” § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). A physical \\nor mental impairment that “substantially limits one or more \\nmajor life activities,” including “speaking,” qualifies as a dis‐\\nability under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act (dis‐\\ncussed below). See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), (2)(A); 29 U.S.C. \\n§ 705(20)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(j)(2)(ii); 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(ii). \\n Title III of the ADA applies generally to hospitals, but Title \\nIII exempts from its requirements “religious organizations” \\nand “entities controlled by religious organizations, including \\nplaces of worship.” 42 U.S.C. § 12187. This exemption is an \\naffirmative defense. A defendant invoking it must plead it in \\nthe answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c); Castro v. Chicago Housing \\nAuthority, 360 F.3d 721, 735 (7th Cir. 2004). Rule 8(c) applies to \\n“any avoidance or affirmative defense,” and lists a number of \\nparticular defenses that must be pleaded. The religious ex‐\\nemption in Title III of the ADA is an affirmative defense be‐\\ncause it assumes the plaintiff can prove everything she must \\nto establish her claim but may still act to defeat her claim.1 \\n It makes sense for the defendant claiming the Title III reli‐\\ngious exemption to bear the burden of pleading and proving \\nits religious control. We have said that a defense not listed in \\nRule 8(c) is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded if the \\n \\n 1 “An affirmative defense is one that admits the allegations in the com‐\\n\\nplaint, but avoids liability, in whole or in part, by new allegations of ex‐\\ncuse, justification or other negating matters.” Divine v. Volunteers of Amer‐\\nica of Illinois, 319 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1003 (N.D. Ill. 2018), quoting Riemer v. \\nChase Bank USA, N.A., 274 F.R.D. 637, 639 (N.D. Ill. 2011). \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 7\\n\\ndefendant bears the burden of proof on the issue under state \\nlaw or if the defense does not controvert the plaintiff’s proof. \\nWinforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856, 872 (7th \\nCir. 2012). The religious exemption defense does not contro‐\\nvert the plaintiff’s proof. It also draws on facts ordinarily \\nwithin the knowledge and control of the defendant. See Gomez \\nv. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640–41 (1980) (qualified immunity is \\naffirmative defense under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; relevant facts are \\npeculiarly within knowledge and control of defendant); \\nWright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1271. An \\nADA plaintiff should not need to spend the money to antici‐\\npate this defense without fair and timely notice that the de‐\\nfendant intends to rely upon it. \\n 2. Consequences of Failure to Plead a Defense \\n A defendant’s failure to plead an affirmative defense may \\nresult in a waiver of the defense if the defendant has relin‐\\nquished it knowingly and intelligently, or forfeiture if the de‐\\nfendant merely failed to preserve the defense by pleading it. \\nSee Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 470 & n.4 (2012). Some of \\nour opinions use the terms waiver and forfeiture interchange‐\\nably, but Wood shows that we need to pay attention to the dif‐\\nference. Whether courts apply waiver or forfeiture in re‐\\nsponse to a failure to plead, the purpose of the pleading re‐\\nquirement for an affirmative defense “is to avoid surprise and \\nundue prejudice to the plaintiff by providing her notice and \\nthe opportunity to demonstrate why the defense should not \\nprevail.” Venters v. City of Delphi, 123 F.3d 956, 967 (7th Cir. \\n1997). \\n We have explained, however, that “the rule that forfeits an \\naffirmative defense not pleaded in the answer (or by an earlier \\nmotion) is, we want to make clear, not to be applied rigidly.” \\n\\f8 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nGarofalo v. Village of Hazel Crest, 754 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. \\n2014), citing Matthews v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., Inc., 642 F.3d \\n565, 570 (7th Cir. 2011). We will generally find that the failure \\nto plead an affirmative defense in the answer works a forfei‐\\nture “only if the plaintiff is harmed by the defendant’s delay \\nin asserting it.” Id. There are limits, though, and in exercising \\ntheir discretion in such matters, district courts must be alert \\nto the real and practical harms that can result from failures to \\nplead. We have explained that \\n the district court has the discretion to allow an \\n answer to be amended to assert an affirmative \\n defense not raised at the outset. The pertinence \\n of a particular defense may only become appar‐\\n ent after discovery, for example, in which case it \\n would be reasonable for the court to permit the \\n belated assertion of that defense. Nonetheless, \\n the defendant remains obligated to act in timely \\n fashion. Once the availability of an affirmative \\n defense is reasonably apparent, the defendant \\n must alert the parties and the court to his intent \\n to pursue that defense. A defendant should not \\n be permitted to “lie behind a log” and ambush \\n a plaintiff with an unexpected defense. The ap‐\\n propriate thing for the defendant to do, of \\n course, is to promptly seek the court’s leave to \\n amend his answer. His failure to do [so] risks a \\n finding that he has waived the defense. \\nVenters, 123 F.3d at 967–68 (internal citations and quotation \\nmarks omitted). \\n Pleadings shape the litigation, including the scope and \\ncost of discovery. Based on the claims and defenses raised in \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 9\\n\\nthe pleadings, the parties can discover information that is rel‐\\nevant, not privileged, and proportional to the needs of the \\ncase. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Many efficiencies are lost when \\nclaims or defenses are left out of pleadings and a party then \\nattempts to assert them at later stages. At the same time, it is \\nnot unusual for parties to discover new theories for claims or \\ndefenses in the course of discovery. Timely motions to amend \\npleadings for such newly discovered theories are appropriate \\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). \\n We see these problems more often when plaintiffs try to \\nraise new theories or claims for the first time in opposing sum‐\\nmary judgment. The concerns about unfair surprise and prej‐\\nudice with unpleaded affirmative defenses are similar: \\n When a new argument is made in summary \\n judgment briefing, the correct first step is to con‐\\n sider whether it changes the complaint’s factual \\n theory, or just the legal theories [the] plaintiff \\n has pursued so far. In the former situation, the \\n plaintiff may be attempting in effect to amend \\n its complaint, and the district court has discre‐\\n tion to deny the de facto amendment and to re‐\\n fuse to consider the new factual claims. In the \\n latter, the court should consider the conse‐\\n quences of allowing the plaintiff’s new theory. \\n If it would, for example, cause unreasonable de‐\\n lay, or make it more costly or difficult to defend \\n the suit, the district court can and should hold \\n the plaintiff to his original theory. \\nBRC Rubber & Plastics, Inc. v. Cont’l Carbon Co., 900 F.3d 529, \\n540 (7th Cir. 2018) (citations and internal quotation marks \\n\\f10 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nomitted), quoting Chessie Logistics Co. v. Krinos Holdings, Inc., \\n867 F.3d 852, 860 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n We routinely enforce this stricture against plaintiffs who \\nwait until summary‐judgment briefing to raise a new claim, \\ndespite the absence of an express pleading requirement, since \\ncomplaints need not identify legal theories. See, e.g., Anderson \\nv. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989, 997 (7th Cir. 2012) (pro se plaintiff); \\nWhitaker v. Milwaukee County, 772 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2014); \\nTrade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., 573 F.3d 401, 412 (7th \\nCir. 2009); Conner v. Illinois Dep’t of Natural Resources, 413 F.3d \\n675, 679–80 (7th Cir. 2005); Griffin v. Potter, 356 F.3d 824, 830 \\n(7th Cir. 2004); Grayson v. O’Neill, 308 F.3d 808, 817 (7th Cir. \\n2002); Whitaker v. T.J. Snow Co., 151 F.3d 661, 663–64 (7th Cir. \\n1998); Auston v. Schubnell, 116 F.3d 251, 255 (7th Cir. 1997); \\nShanahan v. City of Chicago, 82 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir. 1996); \\nKostovetsky v. Ambit Energy Holdings, LLC, 242 F. Supp. 3d 708, \\n718–19 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (reviewing Seventh Circuit case law). \\nIn much the same way, late assertions of affirmative de‐\\nfenses—like the religious exemption to Title III of the ADA—\\nmake litigation more costly and difficult and can make it un‐\\nfairly difficult for a plaintiff to pursue her claims. \\n 3. The District Court’s Ruling \\n The district court held that the hospital did not waive or \\nforfeit its religious exemption affirmative defense. The court \\nacknowledged that the hospital raised the defense for the first \\ntime in its motion for summary judgment but explained that \\nsince this defense is not expressly listed in Federal Rule of \\nCivil Procedure 8(c), “it is not clear that failure to assert it in \\nthe answer waives it.” 236 F. Supp. 3d at 1101. That rationale \\nwill not hold water here. Precedent offers sufficiently clear \\nguidance on when defenses not enumerated in Rule 8(c) must \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 11\\n\\nbe pleaded. See, e.g., Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640–41 \\n(1980); Winforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856, \\n872 (7th Cir. 2012); Sundstrand Corp. v. Standard Kollsman In‐\\ndustries, Inc., 488 F.2d 807, 813 (7th Cir. 1973); Brunswick Leas‐\\ning Corp. v. Wisconsin Cent., Ltd., 136 F.3d 521, 530 (7th Cir. \\n1998). The statutory exemption here is based on facts in a de‐\\nfendant’s control and clearly falls within the category of af‐\\nfirmative defenses. \\n The district court also held that Reed was not prejudiced \\nby the hospital’s delay in asserting this defense. For support, \\nthe court relied on an exchange during the deposition of nurs‐\\ning supervisor William Fry in February 2016, six months be‐\\nfore the close of discovery, to find that Reed knew “for a sub‐\\nstantial period that the religious exemption defense was a \\npossibility.” Reed, 236 F. Supp. 3d at 1101. We respectfully dis‐\\nagree. Here is the entire discussion from Fry’s deposition: \\n Q And so who – what is your understanding of \\n the ownership of Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital \\n Milwaukee? \\n MR. FOLEY: Object to form and foundation. \\n THE WITNESS: I don’t really know the answer \\n to that. I don’t really understand – I don’t know \\n the answer to that. \\n BY MS. BARNES: Who owns the organization? \\n MR. FOLEY: Object to form and foundation. \\n THE WITNESS: I’ll try to answer that. Ascen‐\\n sion Healthcare is our parent sponsor of this \\n ministry. \\n\\f12 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\n BY MS. BARNES: What does that mean, spon‐\\n sor? \\n MR. FOLEY: Object to form. \\n THE WITNESS: Ascension Healthcare has mul‐\\n tiple hospitals in multiple states across the \\n country. That is, again, our – as far as I under‐\\n stand it, our parent ownership structure. \\n BY MS. BARNES: Okay. And is Ascension a re‐\\n ligious organization? \\n A Yes. \\n Q What type of religious organization? \\n A It’s a mission of the Roman Catholic Church. \\n Q A mission? \\n A Um‐hum. \\n Q So is it – is it – \\n A A ministry, I should have said. I ministry of \\n the Roman Catholic Church. \\n Q So is it – does it follow the principles of the \\n Catholic church, when you say “ministry”? \\n MR. FOLEY: I’ll object to form and foundation. \\n I think this is far afield of – \\n THE WITNESS: Yeah, this is beyond my \\n knowledge and expertise. \\n MR. FOLEY: – his knowledge. But if you can an‐\\n swer, go ahead. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 13\\n\\n THE WITNESS: As far as I know, yes. I guess I \\n don’t really understand the question. \\n BY MS. BARNES: What does it mean to be a \\n ministry, I guess? I’m trying to understand it as \\n well. \\n A Well, we’re a not for profit in the ministry of \\n providing healthcare. \\nFry Dep. at 13–15. \\n This brief exchange was with a witness who obviously did \\nnot understand the issue or identify the exemption, let alone \\ntry to assert the exemption. It is not comparable to a lawyer’s \\nstatement that the party intends to assert a defense. The ex‐\\nchange did not put Reed on fair notice that the hospital would \\nbe asserting the religious exemption and that she needed to \\nspend the time and money to conduct full‐bore discovery on \\nwhether the hospital could satisfy the ADA’s religious ex‐\\nemption. \\n The district court also thought that Reed knew when she \\nfiled suit that the hospital was at least nominally associated \\nwith the Catholic faith. Nominal association told plaintiff and \\ntells us nothing about the availability of the religious exemp‐\\ntion. The statutory test is “control.” 42 U.S.C. § 12187. Count‐\\nless entities have names that are associated with religions but \\nare not subject to religious control. \\n Finally, the district court noted that Reed’s response to the \\nhospital’s motion for summary judgment showed that she \\nhad studied the hospital’s corporate structure and governing \\ndocuments (or at least those submitted by the hospital). We \\n\\f14 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nhave a limited record before us on this issue.2 The structure \\nappears to be as follows: the hospital’s sole corporate member \\nis Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. In turn, Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. \\nis “sponsored by” its two corporate members: Ascension \\nHealth (a Catholic national health system) and Columbia \\nHealth System, Inc. (a non‐sectarian community health sys‐\\ntem). Ascension Health is a subsidiary of Ascension Health \\nAlliance, which is a subsidiary of Ascension Health Minis‐\\ntries. The Congregation of Consecrated Life and Societies of \\nApostolic Life of the Vatican conferred public juridic person‐\\nality on Ascension Health Ministries in June 2011. Ascension \\nHealth Ministries’ governing documents state that it shall be \\ngoverned in accordance with canon law. Thus, the hospital is \\nsubject to two lines of control: (1) a Catholic one (Ascension \\nHealth Ministries —> Ascension Health Alliance —> Ascen‐\\nsion Health —> Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. —> the hospital); \\nand (2) a non‐sectarian one (Columbia Health System —> Co‐\\nlumbia St. Mary’s Inc. —> the hospital). \\n The hospital’s bylaws reflect these two lines of control: \\nthey say that the hospital “shall be and remain a Catholic fa‐\\ncility or institution” but also that the hospital will “respect the \\nnonsectarian traditions and values of Columbia Health Sys‐\\ntem.” Similarly reflecting these two lines of control but revers‐\\ning the emphasis, the bylaws of Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. (the \\nhospital’s sole corporate member) say that it “shall not be a \\nCatholic facility or institution” but that it will not perform \\n\\n \\n 2 The record is limited since this defense was sprung on Reed in the \\n\\nmotion for summary judgment. Most of the relevant evidence comes from \\nthe documents the hospital chose to submit. Even those documents show \\na complicated corporate legal structure and an ambiguous relationship \\nwith the hospital’s Catholic affiliates. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 15\\n\\nmedical procedures inconsistent with Catholic ethical direc‐\\ntives. Columbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s bylaws reserve certain pow‐\\ners to both Ascension Health and Columbia Health System.3 \\nColumbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s officers and board members “serve \\nex officio” as the hospital’s officers and board members. Im‐\\nportant for the issue of control, the board members are recom‐\\nmended by Columbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s existing board for ap‐\\npointment by Ascension Health and are intended to “be \\nbroadly representative of the communities served.” Relying \\non this corporate structure as disclosed by the hospital in its \\nsummary judgment materials, the district court determined \\nthat the hospital was sufficiently controlled by the Catholic \\nChurch as to fall within Title III’s religious exemption and to \\nmake it immune to Reed’s ADA claims. \\n 4. Abuse of Discretion \\n We express no opinion on whether, after full discovery \\nand fair litigation of the issue on a more complete record, the \\nhospital might fit within the exemption for entities controlled \\nby religious organizations. Instead, we find that the district \\ncourt abused its discretion by considering this affirmative de‐\\nfense at all. \\n Several factors point in this direction. First, the defendant \\nhospital has offered no excuse or explanation for failing to \\nplead the defense in it answers or for raising the defense so \\nlate. Without a credible excuse for the delay, the hospital’s late \\ninvocation of the defense looks like a straight ambush of the \\nplaintiff when it was too late for her to put together a \\n \\n 3 We are told that these dual lines of control are also detailed in the \\n\\nterms of an Affiliation Agreement, but that document has not been pro‐\\nduced to Reed or included in the record. \\n\\f16 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\ncomprehensive rebuttal. Second, the religious‐exemption de‐\\nfense should not ordinarily depend on discovery from the \\nplaintiff, as will often be the case with other affirmative de‐\\nfenses such as statutes of limitations, estoppels, waivers, and \\nothers. Instead, the religious‐exemption defense will ordinar‐\\nily depend on facts within the knowledge and control of the \\ndefendant itself. Third, the defendant did not deploy this de‐\\nfense until after discovery had closed, meaning both parties \\nhad already invested a good deal of time and money in the \\ncase on the legitimate expectation that they knew what the is‐\\nsues were. Allowing a last‐minute defense that introduces \\nsuch new factual and legal issues after discovery has closed \\nraises the costs of litigation and allows the party that was at \\nleast negligent in failing to plead its defense to take unfair ad‐\\nvantage of its opposing party. Fourth, the district court’s ra‐\\ntionale for allowing the defense to be raised so late simply \\ndoes not withstand scrutiny. In this case, a few facts relevant \\nto this potential affirmative defense came up briefly in one \\ndeposition. As we explained above, that cannot be reasonably \\ntreated as fair notice that the hospital would actually assert \\nthe defense and that the plaintiff would need to spend the \\ntime and money needed to meet that defense. The plaintiff \\nwas entitled to rely on Rule 8(c) and the hospital’s silence in \\nits pleadings. \\n The situation here is similar to that in Venters v. City of Del‐\\nphi, where we concluded that the defendants waived their \\nstatute of limitations affirmative defense. 123 F.3d 956, 967–69 \\n(7th Cir. 1997). There, the defendants failed to include the de‐\\nfense in their answers to the original and amended com‐\\nplaints. We could “discern no justification for the delay” when \\nthey asserted the defense for the first time in their reply mem‐\\norandum in support of their motion for summary judgment. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 17\\n\\nId. at 968. While a difference here is that Reed was at least \\ngiven notice of the defense in the motion for summary judg‐\\nment itself and could attempt to respond, she was still at a \\nserious disadvantage. That notice came after the parties had \\ncompleted discovery. As in Venters, we “cannot overlook the \\nfailure to comply with Rule 8(c) in this context. Intentionally \\nor not, [plaintiff] was bushwacked.” Id. at 969. Put simply, “it \\nwas not [plaintiff’s] obligation to raise the defense, and if Rule \\n8(c) is not to become a nullity, we must not countenance at‐\\ntempts to invoke such defenses at the eleventh hour, without \\nexcuse and without adequate notice to the plaintiff.” Id.4 \\n Finally, the prejudice to Reed from the delayed assertion \\nof the defense is especially acute here because the relevant law \\nand facts simply are not clear. The ADA does not define what \\nit means to be considered a “religious organization” or to be \\n“controlled by a religious organization.” See 42 U.S.C. § \\n12187. To our knowledge, no federal appellate court has yet \\nconstrued this religious exemption. Several district courts \\nhave—including the veteran judge who decided this case. \\nSee Rose v. Cahee, 727 F. Supp. 2d 728, 747 (E.D. Wis. 2010).5 \\n\\n \\n 4 In contrast, we held that a district court did not abuse its discretion \\n\\nin Robinson v. Sappington when it allowed the defendants to amend their \\npleadings at summary judgment to add affirmative defenses. 351 F.3d 317, \\n332–33 (7th Cir. 2003). There, the record showed that the plaintiff had suf‐\\nficient notice that the defendants might pursue the defenses because de‐\\nfense counsel had explored them in detail during discovery. Id. Further, \\nthe plaintiff did not suggest she was prejudiced in any way by the late \\namendment. Id. \\n 5 In Rose, the court applied the religious exemption where a Roman \\n\\nCatholic institute sponsored a healthcare corporation and occupied a pri‐\\nmary role in the corporation’s corporate governance structure, the insti‐\\ntute members made up the entirety of one class of corporate membership, \\n\\f18 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nThese district court decisions show that the issue can be com‐\\nplex, both factually and legally. These decisions have cited \\nand relied on the following Department of Justice interpreta‐\\ntion of the religious exemption: \\n The ADA’s exemption of religious organiza‐\\n tions and religious entities controlled by reli‐\\n gious organizations is very broad, encompass‐\\n ing a wide variety of situations. Religious or‐\\n ganizations and entities controlled by religious \\n organizations have no obligations under the \\n ADA. Even when a religious organization car‐\\n ries out activities that would otherwise make it \\n a public accommodation, the religious organi‐\\n zation is exempt from ADA coverage. Thus, if a \\n church itself operates a day care center, a \\n\\n \\nand the institute’s class members had the sole authority to amend or re‐\\npeal the corporation’s articles of incorporation and bylaws. 727 F. Supp. \\n2d at 747. As for the other district court cases applying the exemption, \\nReed correctly points out that in none was the defense raised late, and in \\nall there was greater evidence of religious control. See Cole v. Saint Francis \\nMedical Ctr., No. 1:15‐CV‐98(ACL), 2016 WL 7474988, at *4‐6 (E.D. Mo. \\nDec. 29, 2016) (exemption was “properly raised by Defendant as an affirm‐\\native defense” and hospital was “under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of \\nthe Roman Catholic Dioceses[.]”); Marshall v. Sisters of the Holy Family of \\nNazareth, 399 F. Supp. 2d 597, 606 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (school “solely operated \\nand controlled by” order of nuns); White v. Denver Seminary, 157 F. Supp. \\n2d 1171, 1173–74 (D. Colo. 2001) (seminary was founded by Baptist asso‐\\nciation and employees were required to be active Christians). By contrast, \\nin Sloan v. Community Christian Day School, LLC, a Christian school was \\nfound to not be exempt since the school was not owned, affiliated with, or \\nfinancially supported by any recognized religious group and was instead \\nowned by two individuals who were not ministers. No. 3–15–0551, 2015 \\nWL 10437824, at * 3, (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 11, 2015). \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 19\\n\\n nursing home, a private school, or a diocesan \\n school system, the operations of the center, \\n home, school, or schools would not be subject to \\n the requirements of the ADA or this part. The \\n religious entity would not lose its exemption \\n merely because the services provided were \\n open to the general public. The test is whether \\n the church or other religious organization oper‐\\n ates the public accommodation, not which indi‐\\n viduals receive the public accommodationʹs ser‐\\n vices. \\n Religious entities that are controlled by reli‐\\n gious organizations are also exempt from the \\n ADA’s requirements. Many religious organiza‐\\n tions in the United States use lay boards and \\n other secular or corporate mechanisms to oper‐\\n ate schools and an array of social services. The \\n use of a lay board or other mechanism does not \\n itself remove the ADA’s religious exemption. \\n Thus, a parochial school, having religious doc‐\\n trine in its curriculum and sponsored by a reli‐\\n gious order, could be exempt either as a reli‐\\n gious organization or as an entity controlled by \\n a religious organization, even if it has a lay \\n board. The test remains a factual one – whether the \\n church or other religious organization controls the \\n operations of the school or of the service or whether \\n the school or service is itself a religious organization. \\n28 C.F.R. ch. 1., pt. 36, App’x C (emphasis added). \\n For this appeal, the critical points are that the law govern‐\\ning the hospital’s affirmative defense is still highly contestable \\n\\f20 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nand its application may well depend on a host of facts that \\nwould need to be explored in some depth. Before summary \\njudgment briefing, plaintiff Reed had no notice that she \\nneeded to prepare to meet the defense. \\n We have considered the possibility of a response less dras‐\\ntic than treating the hospital’s religious‐exemption defense as \\nforfeited. One possibility would be to allow the parties to pur‐\\nsue further discovery on that issue and to have the hospital \\npay for plaintiff’s reasonable costs and attorney fees for that \\nprocess. In this case, however, the hospital has offered no \\ncredible excuse for its delay, and the normal rule is forfeiture \\nof unpleaded defenses. The remedy of reopening discovery \\nwould also impose additional delay on Reed. We see no miti‐\\ngating factors here that would favor anything other than en‐\\nforcement of Rule 8(c) as written and treating the defense as \\nforfeited. We therefore reverse summary judgment for the \\nhospital on the ADA claims. \\n B. Rehabilitation Act Claims \\n 1. Legal Standard \\n We now turn to the merits of Reed’s Rehabilitation Act \\nclaims. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides: “No \\notherwise qualified individual with a disability … shall, \\nsolely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the \\nparticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to \\ndiscrimination under any program or activity receiving Fed‐\\neral financial assistance[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Four elements \\nmust be satisfied to establish a violation of Section 504: (1) the \\nplaintiff must be a handicapped individual as defined by the \\nAct; (2) the plaintiff must be “otherwise qualified” for partic‐\\nipation in the program; (3) the program must receive federal \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 21\\n\\nfinancial assistance; and (4) the plaintiff must have been “de‐\\nnied the benefits of the program solely because of his handi‐\\ncap.” See Mallet v. Wisconsin Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation, \\n130 F.3d 1245, 1257 (7th Cir. 1997). The hospital contests only \\nthis fourth element of sole cause. The ADA and the Rehabili‐\\ntation Act are otherwise very similar, but the Rehabilitation \\nAct prohibits discrimination only if it is “solely by reason of” \\na person’s disability. The ADA permits mixed‐motive claims. \\nSee Whitaker v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Health Servs., 849 F.3d 681, \\n684 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n A plaintiff suing under the Rehabilitation Act can assert \\nthat she was intentionally discriminated against or that the \\ndefendant failed to afford her a reasonable accommodation \\nfor her disability. The Rehabilitation Act does not contain an \\nexplicit accommodation requirement, but the Supreme Court \\nhas located a duty to accommodate in the statute generally. \\nWe have written that in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 \\n(1985), \\n the Court explained that “‘a refusal to modify \\n an existing program might become unreasona‐\\n ble and discriminatory.’” Id. at 300 (quoting \\n Southeastern Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, \\n 413 (1979)). The Rehabilitation Act’s promise of \\n “meaningful access” to state benefits, according \\n to the Court, means that “reasonable accommo‐\\n dations in the grantee’s program or benefit may \\n have to be made.” Id. at 301. \\nWisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 465 \\nF.3d 737, 747 (7th Cir. 2006). We explained further: \\n\\f22 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\n Following Choate, several courts of appeals have \\n adopted the view that the Rehabilitation Act re‐\\n quires public entities to modify federally as‐\\n sisted programs if such a modification is neces‐\\n sary to ensure that the disabled have equal ac‐\\n cess to the benefits of that program. See, e.g., \\n Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 274–75 \\n (2d Cir. 2003). These circuits, including ours, \\n also follow the corollary principle implicit in the \\n Choate decision that the Rehabilitation Act helps \\n disabled individuals obtain access to benefits \\n only when they would have difficulty obtaining \\n those benefits “by reason of” their disabilities, \\n and not because of some quality that they share \\n generally with the public. \\nId. at 748. \\n 2. Analysis of the Rehabilitation Act Claims \\n We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary \\njudgment on the merits. Whitaker, 849 F.3d at 684. Summary \\njudgment is proper when the moving party shows that there \\nis no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is en‐\\ntitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). \\n We reverse the dismissal of Reed’s intentional discrimina‐\\ntion claim, which is based only on the seclusion‐room inci‐\\ndent. The district court determined that the undisputed facts \\nshow that the “seclusion incident” was motivated at least in \\npart by factors other than Reed’s disability. The court stated \\nthat Reed “admits that she spilled her coffee and thereafter \\nfell to the floor screaming. She further concedes that Miller \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 23\\n\\ntold her that she could not remain on the floor in the middle \\nof the hallway. (Docket # 55 ¶ 43).” Reed, 236 F. Supp. at 1106. \\n The district court either misconstrued or exaggerated \\nReed’s concessions. Reed has not conceded any of the reasons \\nMiller cited for taking her to the seclusion room. The district \\ncourt did not include a record citation for its assertion that \\nReed admitted she fell to the floor “screaming.” We have not \\nseen such an admission in the record. Reed admits that she \\nspilled coffee and was on the floor of the hallway. She specif‐\\nically denies she was screaming. See Dkt. 55, ¶¶ 38–45, citing \\nReed Affidavit, Ex. A, Dkt. 55‐26. According to the district \\ncourt, this disturbance at least partially motivated the hospital \\nstaff to put her in seclusion. \\n The undisputed facts show that Reed spilled coffee on her‐\\nself and was on the floor of the hallway. We agree with the \\ndistrict court that Miller was responding to this situation (and \\nnot solely to Reed’s disabilities) when he picked her up off the \\nfloor. So far, so good. But Miller himself testified that, at that \\npoint, he started to take Reed back to her own room (not the \\nseclusion room). It was only during the walk to her room that, \\nbecause of her screaming, the decision was made to take her \\nto the seclusion room. Thus, a jury could find that nothing \\nReed has conceded (spilling coffee and lying on the floor) led \\nMiller to take her to the seclusion room. Spilling the coffee \\nand lying on the floor prompted Miller only to take Reed back \\nto her own room. It was the action that Reed specifically de‐\\nnies (screaming during the walk) that Miller says led him and \\nFry to take Reed to the seclusion room. Reed has not conceded \\nthat she did anything disruptive during the walk to her room, \\nwhen hospital staff decided to take her to the seclusion room. \\nThe material facts that led to her being placed in seclusion are \\n\\f24 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\ndisputed. Crediting Reed’s version of the event, a reasonable \\njury could find that the hospital intentionally discriminated \\nagainst Reed solely on the basis of her disability.6 \\n We also reverse the dismissal of Reed’s reasonable accom‐\\nmodation claim. This claim is based on all of the allegations \\nReed asserts in her complaint (seclusion‐room incident; with‐\\nholding Dynavox; security escort off the premises; and denial \\nof requests to use telephone, to see a chaplain, and to see med‐\\nical records). While medical professionals certainly are enti‐\\ntled to discretion in managing their patients, the hospital has \\nnot argued that it withheld the Dynavox in the exercise of pro‐\\nfessional judgment to treat Reed’s mental illness. Withhold‐\\ning the Dynavox in particular may support a viable failure‐to‐\\n\\n \\n 6 The parties have not addressed another issue that may arise on re‐\\n\\nmand. The Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act do \\nnot create a remedy for medical malpractice. See Grzan v. Charter Hosp., \\n104 F.3d 116, 122–23 (7th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds as stated \\nin Amundson v. Wisc. Dep’t of Health Svcs., 721 F.3d 871, 874 (7th Cir. 2013); \\nBryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996) (prisoner’s claim); ac‐\\ncord, e.g., McGugan v. Aldana‐Bernier, 752 F.3d 224, 231–32 (2d Cir. 2014); \\nBurger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882, 883 (8th Cir. 2005); Schiavo ex rel. Schindler \\nv. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2005); Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corp. \\nof America, 403 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005). As the Second Circuit ex‐\\nplained in McGugan, the term “discrimination” can have a benign (and \\nperfectly lawful) sense, in which a health care provider makes a discrimi‐\\nnating professional judgment about the type of treatment to provide to a \\npatient, but can also have a pejorative sense that describes actions taken \\nbased on irrelevant criteria under the influence of irrational bias. See 752 \\nF.3d at 231–32, comparing United States v. University Hosp., 729 F.2d 144, \\n156 (2d Cir. 1984), and Green v. City of New York, 465 F.3d 65, 78 (2d Cir. \\n2006). In this appeal, the hospital has not argued that it withheld Reed’s \\nDynavox from her as a benign form of discrimination, i.e., as an exercise \\nof medical judgment for her appropriate treatment. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 25\\n\\naccommodate claim under the Rehabilitation Act, subject to \\nthe considerations discussed above in note 6. \\n The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of \\nthe hospital is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for \\nproceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, Circuit \\nRule 36 shall apply.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":685,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589051,"string":"4,589,051"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Joseph MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael DOWNEY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Joseph Miller v. Michael Downey"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-1507"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Flaum, Rovner, Scudder\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-1507\\nJOSEPH MILLER,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nMICHAEL DOWNEY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Central District of Illinois.\\n No. 2:14-cv-2211 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, ROVNER, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Between 2012 and 2013, the Jerome\\nCombs Detention Center in Kankakee, Illinois, prohibited\\ninmates from receiving any newspapers. While awaiting trial\\non bank robbery charges, Joseph Miller’s family bought him\\na $279 subscription to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin to help\\nhim with his case. Deeming the Law Bulletin a newspaper, jail\\nofficials precluded Miller from receiving it. Miller responded\\nwith a lawsuit challenging the jail’s prohibition and\\n\\f2 No. 17-1507\\n\\nconfiscation of the publication and seeking to recover the\\nsubscription fee. The district court construed the lawsuit as\\nrequiring it to answer, not the narrow question of whether\\nMiller had a right to receive a legal publication like the Law\\nBulletin, but instead the broader question of whether the jail’s\\nban on all newspapers offended the First Amendment. In the\\nend, the district court upheld the newspaper ban and\\nawarded summary judgment to the defendant jail officials.\\nBecause the district court erred in reaching and resolving such\\na broad constitutional question—and the record was not fully\\ndeveloped as it pertains to the jail’s restriction on legal\\npublications—we vacate the district court’s judgment and\\nremand for further proceedings.\\n I\\n A\\n Pursuant to an agreement between the United States\\nMarshals Service and the Kankakee County Sheriff’s Office,\\nJoseph Miller was detained at the Jerome Combs Detention\\nCenter or JCDC from February 2012 to August 2014 while\\nawaiting trial and sentencing on federal charges. Because the\\njail did not provide inmates access to federal case law, Miller,\\na federal prisoner, asked his family to buy him a subscription\\nto a legal publication covering federal criminal law. He\\nwanted to better understand his case and assist with his\\ndefense, so his family ordered a one-year subscription to the\\nChicago Daily Law Bulletin and arranged for delivery to him at\\nthe facility.\\n Miller never received his subscription. He instead learned\\nthat the publication was deemed contraband because, accord-\\ning to Assistant Chief of Corrections Chad Kolitwenzew,\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 3\\n\\n“[t]he Inmate Handbook states [the jail does] not allow news-\\npapers.” Issues of the Law Bulletin, therefore, were intercepted\\nevery day for ten months and disposed of by jail staff without\\nany notice to Miller.\\n The JCDC’s policy on inmate mail was not a model of clar-\\nity during the relevant period. The jail did not maintain a\\nwritten policy listing what items inmates were prohibited\\nfrom receiving. Rather, and as best we can tell, the jail consid-\\nered newspapers contraband because the Inmate Handbook\\ndid not expressly say inmates could possess them. Jail officials\\nviewed the Law Bulletin as a newspaper because (and appar-\\nently only because) it was printed on newsprint.\\n Adding to the confusion, however, is that during this same\\nperiod the jail permitted inmates to receive personal\\nsubscriptions to Prison Legal News. This was so even though\\nPrison Legal News, just like the Law Bulletin, is printed on\\nnewsprint. So, too, was Prison Legal News not listed as a\\npermitted item in the JCDC Inmate Handbook.\\n B\\n In 2014, after learning that copies of the Law Bulletin had\\nbeen delivered to the JCDC and filing multiple grievances\\nwith the jail, Miller filed a pro se complaint alleging that the\\njail’s disposal of the publication, especially with no notice to\\nhim, violated the First Amendment and the Due Process\\nClause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\\n Upon screening Miller’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1915A, the district court determined that Miller stated a\\ncolorable First Amendment claim against three jail officials\\nand the Kankakee County Sheriff. Following discovery the\\ndefendants moved for summary judgment. Although Miller’s\\n\\f4 No. 17-1507\\n\\nsuit focused narrowly on the JCDC’s prohibition of the Law\\nBulletin—which he repeatedly stressed and explained was a\\nlegal publication and not a daily newspaper akin to the\\nChicago Tribune—the defendants’ motion instead asked the\\ndistrict court to treat Miller’s claims as broadly challenging\\nthe JCDC’s newspaper ban. They argued that safety and\\nsecurity risks posed by excess paper in the jail warranted a\\ntotal ban on newspapers, including the Law Bulletin.\\n The district court accepted the defendants’ framing of the\\nissue and granted their motion. Applying the four-factor test\\nannounced in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the court con-\\ncluded that the newspaper ban was permissible given the\\njail’s security, safety, and staffing concerns. The summary\\njudgment record, as the district court saw it, showed that in-\\nmates had used newspapers to flood cells and conceal contra-\\nband—circumstances justifying a categorical ban. The court\\nalso found that the defendants provided evidence that allow-\\ning inmates personal newspaper subscriptions “would un-\\nnecessarily strain staff resources in monitoring the amount of\\npaper within the facility and sorting the incoming mail.” The\\npolicy was not an “exaggerated response to legitimate peno-\\nlogical concerns,” the court continued, because the jail af-\\nforded inmates alternative ways to stay current on the news\\n(for example, by watching television) and to work on their le-\\ngal cases by reading Prison Legal News and using the jail’s law\\nlibrary.\\n On appeal, and now represented by counsel, Miller re-\\nnews his contention that the confiscation of the Law Bulletin\\nviolated his rights under the First Amendment. He also ar-\\ngues the district court committed error by altogether failing to\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 5\\n\\naddress, and perhaps implicitly rejecting, his due process\\nclaim.\\n II\\n A\\n The district court painted with much too broad a brush\\nand resolved a case never brought by Joseph Miller. Miller is\\na gifted writer and his pro se complaint, prepared in pencil on\\nnotebook paper, was remarkable for its clarity and precision.\\nHe alleged that the defendant jail officials violated his consti-\\ntutional rights by confiscating not a newspaper of general cir-\\nculation, but rather a legal publication, the Law Bulletin. He\\nexplained that he needed the publication because the JCDC\\nhad neither a law library nor any research materials concern-\\ning federal case law.\\n Miller took the same care in opposing the defendants’ mo-\\ntion for summary judgment, emphasizing that permitting him\\n(and other federal inmates housed in the Kankakee facility) to\\nreceive the Law Bulletin (or another legal publication) would\\nnot flood the facility with paper, overwhelm mailroom staff,\\nor create excessive security risks. In plain and simple terms,\\nMiller implored the district court to treat his claims for what\\nthey were—a lawsuit challenging the JCDC’s prohibition and\\nconfiscation of a legal publication—and not for what they\\nwere not—a request to receive a newspaper.\\n Though Miller may not have realized it, his submissions\\nto the district court aligned perfectly with the precept that\\nfederal courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, should strive\\nto decide constitutional cases narrowly and refrain from an-\\nswering questions broader than necessary to resolve the case\\nor controversy before them. The symmetry between Miller’s\\n\\f6 No. 17-1507\\n\\nposition and the principle of narrow constitutional decision-\\nmaking jumps off the pages of his submissions to the district\\ncourt. And it is this exact principle that charts a straightfor-\\nward course for resolving Miller’s claims.\\n The resolution of Miller’s claims on summary judgment\\ndid not require the district court to answer whether a jail’s\\nblanket ban on newspapers offends the First Amendment.\\nMiller’s counsel rightly observes that the trendline on that\\nquestion favors Miller. But the defendants are equally right to\\nobserve that the question entails complexity because some of\\nthe pertinent precedent, including our prior decision in\\nKincaid v. Rusk, 670 F.2d 737 (7th Cir. 1982), predates the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Turner. In Turner the Court\\nmodified preexisting law by announcing a new four-factor\\ntest for assessing prison regulations that impinge on inmates’\\nconstitutional rights. See 482 U.S. at 89–91. There is no dispute\\nthat the Turner test applies where, as here, a policy implicates\\na prisoner’s First Amendment rights, including the right to\\nread while detained. See King v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 415 F.3d\\n634, 638 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Freedom of speech is not merely\\nfreedom to speak; it is also freedom to read.”). And so too are\\nthe defendants right to observe that a proper analysis of\\nMiller’s claim would have to consider whether qualified\\nimmunity shielded them from liability if the JCDC’s blanket\\nnewspaper ban transgressed the First Amendment.\\n Another factor counseling in favor of taking Miller’s claim\\nas he pleaded it is that the Kankakee facility overhauled its\\npublication policy in June 2015. The JCDC now supplies the\\nfacility with multiple daily copies of USA Today and permits\\ninmates to receive subscriptions to up to four magazines per\\nmonth. This change suggests that broadly ruling on the\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 7\\n\\nconstitutionality of the JCDC’s prior policy was unnecessary.\\nAnd this is particularly so given that just days after Miller\\nfiled his complaint—seeking not only money damages but\\nalso declaratory and injunctive relief—the district court\\nlearned he was transferred to another facility, rendering his\\nrequest for injunctive relief moot. Put differently, when faced\\nwith a First Amendment challenge to an outdated policy\\nbrought by an inmate no longer housed at the facility in ques-\\ntion, the district court should have resolved the case on nar-\\nrower grounds, focusing precisely on the case and contro-\\nversy brought by Miller. See generally ISI Int’l v. Borden Ladner\\nGervais LLP, 256 F.3d 548, 552 (7th Cir. 2001) (emphasizing\\nthat “federal courts are supposed to do what they can to avoid\\nmaking constitutional decisions, and strive doubly to avoid\\nmaking unnecessary constitutional decisions”).\\n The proper path was to answer the narrow and specific\\nclaim advanced by Miller—whether the jail’s confiscation of\\nhis subscription to the Law Bulletin violated the First Amend-\\nment. See Hedgwood v. City of Eau Claire, 676 F.3d 600, 603 (7th\\nCir. 2012) (explaining that principles of “judicial restraint”\\ncounsel in favor of resolving “as-applied challenges before fa-\\ncial ones in an effort to decide constitutional attacks on the\\nnarrowest possible grounds and to avoid reaching unneces-\\nsary constitutional issues”).\\n B\\n Similar considerations caution against us reaching the\\nmerits of Miller’s First Amendment claim in the first instance.\\nThe better approach is to allow the district court and parties\\nthe initial opportunity to address the issues presented anew\\nand through the narrower frame of how the Turner factors\\n\\f8 No. 17-1507\\n\\napply to the JCDC’s confiscation of Miller’s subscription to a\\nlegal publication, the Law Bulletin.\\n Suffice it for us to offer but a few observations relevant to\\na narrowed consideration of the Turner factors. The district\\ncourt’s initial assessment of Miller’s claim rooted itself in facts\\nunsupported by the summary judgment record. For example,\\nthe court assessed the second Turner factor (whether alterna-\\ntive means of exercising the asserted right—here the right to\\nreceive and read legal publications—remain available to the\\ninmate) on the view that the JCDC had a law library with re-\\nsources on federal case law available to federal inmates like\\nMiller. The record shows otherwise. The JCDC had no law li-\\nbrary, and while inmates had access to an electronic database\\nwith Illinois legal resources, Miller contends that there was a\\ndearth of material on federal law in the jail—a point that went\\nuncontested by the defendants.\\n On this same factor, it appears that the JCDC’s policy\\n(throughout Miller’s detention) allowed inmates to receive\\nsubscriptions to Prison Legal News. The district court viewed\\nthis access as important without recognizing that the record\\nleft unclear whether, contrary to the jail’s policy, inmates were\\nin fact being allowed to receive the publication. Regardless, it\\nis not enough to say, as the district court suggested, that one\\nlegal publication is just like the next and thus Prison Legal\\nNews sufficed to serve a federal inmate’s every legal need.\\nWhat is more, the district court failed to recognize that Prison\\nLegal News—just like the Law Bulletin—is published on news-\\nprint, a fact casting at least some doubt on the JCDCʹs conten-\\ntion that banning all newsprint publications was essential to\\nprison safety, a consideration relevant to the first Turner fac-\\ntor.\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 9\\n\\n On remand, the right analysis asks whether permitting in-\\nmates to receive subscriptions to legal publications (subject to\\nreasonable limitations) jeopardized institutional objectives to\\nsuch an extent as to justify the JCDC’s confiscation of the Law\\nBulletin. On this front we make three final observations. First,\\nthe district court did not consider whether the JCDC’s change\\nof policy in 2015—to allow inmates to receive up to four mag-\\nazine subscriptions—warranted discounting the rationale\\nsupporting the JCDC’s decision to ban the Law Bulletin (and,\\nif so, to what degree) due to concerns associated with excess\\npaper. See Turner, 482 U.S. at 89 (“[T]here must be a ‘valid,\\nrational connection’ between the prison regulation and the le-\\ngitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it.”)\\n(quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984)).\\n Second, the record on summary judgment contained very\\nfew examples of any publications being used to create safety\\nrisks within the facility. And none of the examples the defend-\\nants did provide relate to newsprint publications. Though\\nmindful that courts must afford substantial deference to\\nprison administrators on matters of institutional security, see\\nOverton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003), that latitude is not\\nboundless: defendants still must present evidence “demon-\\nstrating a specific security concern that bears a nexus to the\\nprohibited conduct.” Riker v. Lemmon, 798 F.3d 546, 557 (7th\\nCir. 2015).\\n Third, we note based on the public record that the JCDC’s\\nprohibition of the Law Bulletin seems in substantial tension, if\\nnot direct conflict, with the County Jail Standards promul-\\ngated by the State of Illinois. See Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20,\\n§ 701.180 (providing that inmates in county facilities “may re-\\nceive … periodicals subject to inspection and approval by jail\\n\\f10 No. 17-1507\\n\\npersonnel”). The record is silent as to whether the JCDC is a\\nfacility subject to the County Jail Standards, and, if so, what\\nspecific security concerns prevented the facility from adher-\\ning to the regulation and allowing Miller to receive his sub-\\nscription to the Law Bulletin. That the Jail Standards seem to\\npermit inmates to receive all periodicals, while still ensuring\\nprison safety, suggests that Kankakee’s prohibition of an even\\nnarrower class of publications (specifically, legal publica-\\ntions) was an exaggerated response to its proffered security\\nconcerns, a consideration relevant to the entire Turner analy-\\nsis. See Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528 (2006). This too war-\\nrants consideration on remand.\\n III\\n We owe a final word to Miller’s procedural due process\\nclaim. Miller alleged that jail officials confiscated and de-\\nstroyed his copies of the Law Bulletin without any notice or\\nopportunity for him to appeal this action. In his amended\\ncomplaint, he expressly cast this allegation in terms of a vio-\\nlation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\\nThe district court, however, did not address this claim, per-\\nhaps on the view that it was entirely duplicative of Miller’s\\nFirst Amendment claim. But that is not so. Indeed, at a\\nbroader level, the imperative of fair process may take on\\nadded significance in the domain of free speech. See, e.g.,\\nHenry P. Monaghan, First Amendment “Due Process,” 83 Harv.\\nL. Rev. 518 (1970).\\n Due process requires that the decision to censor inmate\\nmail must be accompanied by “minimum procedural safe-\\nguards.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417 (1974), over-\\nruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401\\n(1989); see also Perry v. Secʹy, Fla. Depʹt of Corr., 664 F.3d 1359,\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 11\\n\\n1368 (11th Cir. 2011) (applying this standard to a due process\\nclaim). This standard has generally required officials to pro-\\nvide inmates with notice and an opportunity to object to a\\nconfiscation of their mail. See Martinez, 416 U.S. at 418. Miller\\ndeserves the opportunity on remand to have this claim con-\\nsidered under these standards.\\n For these reasons, we VACATE the judgment of the district\\ncourt and REMAND for further proceedings.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4366304/\", \"author_raw\": \"SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589051/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Joseph MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael DOWNEY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-1507\nJOSEPH MILLER,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nMICHAEL DOWNEY, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Central District of Illinois.\n No. 2:14-cv-2211 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, ROVNER, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Between 2012 and 2013, the Jerome\nCombs Detention Center in Kankakee, Illinois, prohibited\ninmates from receiving any newspapers. While awaiting trial\non bank robbery charges, Joseph Miller’s family bought him\na $279 subscription to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin to help\nhim with his case. Deeming the Law Bulletin a newspaper, jail\nofficials precluded Miller from receiving it. Miller responded\nwith a lawsuit challenging the jail’s prohibition and\n\f2 No. 17-1507\n\nconfiscation of the publication and seeking to recover the\nsubscription fee. The district court construed the lawsuit as\nrequiring it to answer, not the narrow question of whether\nMiller had a right to receive a legal publication like the Law\nBulletin, but instead the broader question of whether the jail’s\nban on all newspapers offended the First Amendment. In the\nend, the district court upheld the newspaper ban and\nawarded summary judgment to the defendant jail officials.\nBecause the district court erred in reaching and resolving such\na broad constitutional question—and the record was not fully\ndeveloped as it pertains to the jail’s restriction on legal\npublications—we vacate the district court’s judgment and\nremand for further proceedings.\n I\n A\n Pursuant to an agreement between the United States\nMarshals Service and the Kankakee County Sheriff’s Office,\nJoseph Miller was detained at the Jerome Combs Detention\nCenter or JCDC from February 2012 to August 2014 while\nawaiting trial and sentencing on federal charges. Because the\njail did not provide inmates access to federal case law, Miller,\na federal prisoner, asked his family to buy him a subscription\nto a legal publication covering federal criminal law. He\nwanted to better understand his case and assist with his\ndefense, so his family ordered a one-year subscription to the\nChicago Daily Law Bulletin and arranged for delivery to him at\nthe facility.\n Miller never received his subscription. He instead learned\nthat the publication was deemed contraband because, accord-\ning to Assistant Chief of Corrections Chad Kolitwenzew,\n\fNo. 17-1507 3\n\n“[t]he Inmate Handbook states [the jail does] not allow news-\npapers.” Issues of the Law Bulletin, therefore, were intercepted\nevery day for ten months and disposed of by jail staff without\nany notice to Miller.\n The JCDC’s policy on inmate mail was not a model of clar-\nity during the relevant period. The jail did not maintain a\nwritten policy listing what items inmates were prohibited\nfrom receiving. Rather, and as best we can tell, the jail consid-\nered newspapers contraband because the Inmate Handbook\ndid not expressly say inmates could possess them. Jail officials\nviewed the Law Bulletin as a newspaper because (and appar-\nently only because) it was printed on newsprint.\n Adding to the confusion, however, is that during this same\nperiod the jail permitted inmates to receive personal\nsubscriptions to Prison Legal News. This was so even though\nPrison Legal News, just like the Law Bulletin, is printed on\nnewsprint. So, too, was Prison Legal News not listed as a\npermitted item in the JCDC Inmate Handbook.\n B\n In 2014, after learning that copies of the Law Bulletin had\nbeen delivered to the JCDC and filing multiple grievances\nwith the jail, Miller filed a pro se complaint alleging that the\njail’s disposal of the publication, especially with no notice to\nhim, violated the First Amendment and the Due Process\nClause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\n Upon screening Miller’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1915A, the district court determined that Miller stated a\ncolorable First Amendment claim against three jail officials\nand the Kankakee County Sheriff. Following discovery the\ndefendants moved for summary judgment. Although Miller’s\n\f4 No. 17-1507\n\nsuit focused narrowly on the JCDC’s prohibition of the Law\nBulletin—which he repeatedly stressed and explained was a\nlegal publication and not a daily newspaper akin to the\nChicago Tribune—the defendants’ motion instead asked the\ndistrict court to treat Miller’s claims as broadly challenging\nthe JCDC’s newspaper ban. They argued that safety and\nsecurity risks posed by excess paper in the jail warranted a\ntotal ban on newspapers, including the Law Bulletin.\n The district court accepted the defendants’ framing of the\nissue and granted their motion. Applying the four-factor test\nannounced in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the court con-\ncluded that the newspaper ban was permissible given the\njail’s security, safety, and staffing concerns. The summary\njudgment record, as the district court saw it, showed that in-\nmates had used newspapers to flood cells and conceal contra-\nband—circumstances justifying a categorical ban. The court\nalso found that the defendants provided evidence that allow-\ning inmates personal newspaper subscriptions “would un-\nnecessarily strain staff resources in monitoring the amount of\npaper within the facility and sorting the incoming mail.” The\npolicy was not an “exaggerated response to legitimate peno-\nlogical concerns,” the court continued, because the jail af-\nforded inmates alternative ways to stay current on the news\n(for example, by watching television) and to work on their le-\ngal cases by reading Prison Legal News and using the jail’s law\nlibrary.\n On appeal, and now represented by counsel, Miller re-\nnews his contention that the confiscation of the Law Bulletin\nviolated his rights under the First Amendment. He also ar-\ngues the district court committed error by altogether failing to\n\fNo. 17-1507 5\n\naddress, and perhaps implicitly rejecting, his due process\nclaim.\n II\n A\n The district court painted with much too broad a brush\nand resolved a case never brought by Joseph Miller. Miller is\na gifted writer and his pro se complaint, prepared in pencil on\nnotebook paper, was remarkable for its clarity and precision.\nHe alleged that the defendant jail officials violated his consti-\ntutional rights by confiscating not a newspaper of general cir-\nculation, but rather a legal publication, the Law Bulletin. He\nexplained that he needed the publication because the JCDC\nhad neither a law library nor any research materials concern-\ning federal case law.\n Miller took the same care in opposing the defendants’ mo-\ntion for summary judgment, emphasizing that permitting him\n(and other federal inmates housed in the Kankakee facility) to\nreceive the Law Bulletin (or another legal publication) would\nnot flood the facility with paper, overwhelm mailroom staff,\nor create excessive security risks. In plain and simple terms,\nMiller implored the district court to treat his claims for what\nthey were—a lawsuit challenging the JCDC’s prohibition and\nconfiscation of a legal publication—and not for what they\nwere not—a request to receive a newspaper.\n Though Miller may not have realized it, his submissions\nto the district court aligned perfectly with the precept that\nfederal courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, should strive\nto decide constitutional cases narrowly and refrain from an-\nswering questions broader than necessary to resolve the case\nor controversy before them. The symmetry between Miller’s\n\f6 No. 17-1507\n\nposition and the principle of narrow constitutional decision-\nmaking jumps off the pages of his submissions to the district\ncourt. And it is this exact principle that charts a straightfor-\nward course for resolving Miller’s claims.\n The resolution of Miller’s claims on summary judgment\ndid not require the district court to answer whether a jail’s\nblanket ban on newspapers offends the First Amendment.\nMiller’s counsel rightly observes that the trendline on that\nquestion favors Miller. But the defendants are equally right to\nobserve that the question entails complexity because some of\nthe pertinent precedent, including our prior decision in\nKincaid v. Rusk, 670 F.2d 737 (7th Cir. 1982), predates the\nSupreme Court’s decision in Turner. In Turner the Court\nmodified preexisting law by announcing a new four-factor\ntest for assessing prison regulations that impinge on inmates’\nconstitutional rights. See 482 U.S. at 89–91. There is no dispute\nthat the Turner test applies where, as here, a policy implicates\na prisoner’s First Amendment rights, including the right to\nread while detained. See King v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 415 F.3d\n634, 638 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Freedom of speech is not merely\nfreedom to speak; it is also freedom to read.”). And so too are\nthe defendants right to observe that a proper analysis of\nMiller’s claim would have to consider whether qualified\nimmunity shielded them from liability if the JCDC’s blanket\nnewspaper ban transgressed the First Amendment.\n Another factor counseling in favor of taking Miller’s claim\nas he pleaded it is that the Kankakee facility overhauled its\npublication policy in June 2015. The JCDC now supplies the\nfacility with multiple daily copies of USA Today and permits\ninmates to receive subscriptions to up to four magazines per\nmonth. This change suggests that broadly ruling on the\n\fNo. 17-1507 7\n\nconstitutionality of the JCDC’s prior policy was unnecessary.\nAnd this is particularly so given that just days after Miller\nfiled his complaint—seeking not only money damages but\nalso declaratory and injunctive relief—the district court\nlearned he was transferred to another facility, rendering his\nrequest for injunctive relief moot. Put differently, when faced\nwith a First Amendment challenge to an outdated policy\nbrought by an inmate no longer housed at the facility in ques-\ntion, the district court should have resolved the case on nar-\nrower grounds, focusing precisely on the case and contro-\nversy brought by Miller. See generally ISI Int’l v. Borden Ladner\nGervais LLP, 256 F.3d 548, 552 (7th Cir. 2001) (emphasizing\nthat “federal courts are supposed to do what they can to avoid\nmaking constitutional decisions, and strive doubly to avoid\nmaking unnecessary constitutional decisions”).\n The proper path was to answer the narrow and specific\nclaim advanced by Miller—whether the jail’s confiscation of\nhis subscription to the Law Bulletin violated the First Amend-\nment. See Hedgwood v. City of Eau Claire, 676 F.3d 600, 603 (7th\nCir. 2012) (explaining that principles of “judicial restraint”\ncounsel in favor of resolving “as-applied challenges before fa-\ncial ones in an effort to decide constitutional attacks on the\nnarrowest possible grounds and to avoid reaching unneces-\nsary constitutional issues”).\n B\n Similar considerations caution against us reaching the\nmerits of Miller’s First Amendment claim in the first instance.\nThe better approach is to allow the district court and parties\nthe initial opportunity to address the issues presented anew\nand through the narrower frame of how the Turner factors\n\f8 No. 17-1507\n\napply to the JCDC’s confiscation of Miller’s subscription to a\nlegal publication, the Law Bulletin.\n Suffice it for us to offer but a few observations relevant to\na narrowed consideration of the Turner factors. The district\ncourt’s initial assessment of Miller’s claim rooted itself in facts\nunsupported by the summary judgment record. For example,\nthe court assessed the second Turner factor (whether alterna-\ntive means of exercising the asserted right—here the right to\nreceive and read legal publications—remain available to the\ninmate) on the view that the JCDC had a law library with re-\nsources on federal case law available to federal inmates like\nMiller. The record shows otherwise. The JCDC had no law li-\nbrary, and while inmates had access to an electronic database\nwith Illinois legal resources, Miller contends that there was a\ndearth of material on federal law in the jail—a point that went\nuncontested by the defendants.\n On this same factor, it appears that the JCDC’s policy\n(throughout Miller’s detention) allowed inmates to receive\nsubscriptions to Prison Legal News. The district court viewed\nthis access as important without recognizing that the record\nleft unclear whether, contrary to the jail’s policy, inmates were\nin fact being allowed to receive the publication. Regardless, it\nis not enough to say, as the district court suggested, that one\nlegal publication is just like the next and thus Prison Legal\nNews sufficed to serve a federal inmate’s every legal need.\nWhat is more, the district court failed to recognize that Prison\nLegal News—just like the Law Bulletin—is published on news-\nprint, a fact casting at least some doubt on the JCDCʹs conten-\ntion that banning all newsprint publications was essential to\nprison safety, a consideration relevant to the first Turner fac-\ntor.\n\fNo. 17-1507 9\n\n On remand, the right analysis asks whether permitting in-\nmates to receive subscriptions to legal publications (subject to\nreasonable limitations) jeopardized institutional objectives to\nsuch an extent as to justify the JCDC’s confiscation of the Law\nBulletin. On this front we make three final observations. First,\nthe district court did not consider whether the JCDC’s change\nof policy in 2015—to allow inmates to receive up to four mag-\nazine subscriptions—warranted discounting the rationale\nsupporting the JCDC’s decision to ban the Law Bulletin (and,\nif so, to what degree) due to concerns associated with excess\npaper. See Turner, 482 U.S. at 89 (“[T]here must be a ‘valid,\nrational connection’ between the prison regulation and the le-\ngitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it.”)\n(quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984)).\n Second, the record on summary judgment contained very\nfew examples of any publications being used to create safety\nrisks within the facility. And none of the examples the defend-\nants did provide relate to newsprint publications. Though\nmindful that courts must afford substantial deference to\nprison administrators on matters of institutional security, see\nOverton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003), that latitude is not\nboundless: defendants still must present evidence “demon-\nstrating a specific security concern that bears a nexus to the\nprohibited conduct.” Riker v. Lemmon, 798 F.3d 546, 557 (7th\nCir. 2015).\n Third, we note based on the public record that the JCDC’s\nprohibition of the Law Bulletin seems in substantial tension, if\nnot direct conflict, with the County Jail Standards promul-\ngated by the State of Illinois. See Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20,\n§ 701.180 (providing that inmates in county facilities “may re-\nceive … periodicals subject to inspection and approval by jail\n\f10 No. 17-1507\n\npersonnel”). The record is silent as to whether the JCDC is a\nfacility subject to the County Jail Standards, and, if so, what\nspecific security concerns prevented the facility from adher-\ning to the regulation and allowing Miller to receive his sub-\nscription to the Law Bulletin. That the Jail Standards seem to\npermit inmates to receive all periodicals, while still ensuring\nprison safety, suggests that Kankakee’s prohibition of an even\nnarrower class of publications (specifically, legal publica-\ntions) was an exaggerated response to its proffered security\nconcerns, a consideration relevant to the entire Turner analy-\nsis. See Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528 (2006). This too war-\nrants consideration on remand.\n III\n We owe a final word to Miller’s procedural due process\nclaim. Miller alleged that jail officials confiscated and de-\nstroyed his copies of the Law Bulletin without any notice or\nopportunity for him to appeal this action. In his amended\ncomplaint, he expressly cast this allegation in terms of a vio-\nlation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\nThe district court, however, did not address this claim, per-\nhaps on the view that it was entirely duplicative of Miller’s\nFirst Amendment claim. But that is not so. Indeed, at a\nbroader level, the imperative of fair process may take on\nadded significance in the domain of free speech. See, e.g.,\nHenry P. Monaghan, First Amendment “Due Process,” 83 Harv.\nL. Rev. 518 (1970).\n Due process requires that the decision to censor inmate\nmail must be accompanied by “minimum procedural safe-\nguards.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417 (1974), over-\nruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401\n(1989); see also Perry v. Secʹy, Fla. Depʹt of Corr., 664 F.3d 1359,\n\fNo. 17-1507 11\n\n1368 (11th Cir. 2011) (applying this standard to a due process\nclaim). This standard has generally required officials to pro-\nvide inmates with notice and an opportunity to object to a\nconfiscation of their mail. See Martinez, 416 U.S. at 418. Miller\ndeserves the opportunity on remand to have this claim con-\nsidered under these standards.\n For these reasons, we VACATE the judgment of the district\ncourt and REMAND for further proceedings.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Joseph MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael DOWNEY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-1507\\nJOSEPH MILLER,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nMICHAEL DOWNEY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Central District of Illinois.\\n No. 2:14-cv-2211 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, ROVNER, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Between 2012 and 2013, the Jerome\\nCombs Detention Center in Kankakee, Illinois, prohibited\\ninmates from receiving any newspapers. While awaiting trial\\non bank robbery charges, Joseph Miller’s family bought him\\na $279 subscription to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin to help\\nhim with his case. Deeming the Law Bulletin a newspaper, jail\\nofficials precluded Miller from receiving it. Miller responded\\nwith a lawsuit challenging the jail’s prohibition and\\n\\f2 No. 17-1507\\n\\nconfiscation of the publication and seeking to recover the\\nsubscription fee. The district court construed the lawsuit as\\nrequiring it to answer, not the narrow question of whether\\nMiller had a right to receive a legal publication like the Law\\nBulletin, but instead the broader question of whether the jail’s\\nban on all newspapers offended the First Amendment. In the\\nend, the district court upheld the newspaper ban and\\nawarded summary judgment to the defendant jail officials.\\nBecause the district court erred in reaching and resolving such\\na broad constitutional question—and the record was not fully\\ndeveloped as it pertains to the jail’s restriction on legal\\npublications—we vacate the district court’s judgment and\\nremand for further proceedings.\\n I\\n A\\n Pursuant to an agreement between the United States\\nMarshals Service and the Kankakee County Sheriff’s Office,\\nJoseph Miller was detained at the Jerome Combs Detention\\nCenter or JCDC from February 2012 to August 2014 while\\nawaiting trial and sentencing on federal charges. Because the\\njail did not provide inmates access to federal case law, Miller,\\na federal prisoner, asked his family to buy him a subscription\\nto a legal publication covering federal criminal law. He\\nwanted to better understand his case and assist with his\\ndefense, so his family ordered a one-year subscription to the\\nChicago Daily Law Bulletin and arranged for delivery to him at\\nthe facility.\\n Miller never received his subscription. He instead learned\\nthat the publication was deemed contraband because, accord-\\ning to Assistant Chief of Corrections Chad Kolitwenzew,\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 3\\n\\n“[t]he Inmate Handbook states [the jail does] not allow news-\\npapers.” Issues of the Law Bulletin, therefore, were intercepted\\nevery day for ten months and disposed of by jail staff without\\nany notice to Miller.\\n The JCDC’s policy on inmate mail was not a model of clar-\\nity during the relevant period. The jail did not maintain a\\nwritten policy listing what items inmates were prohibited\\nfrom receiving. Rather, and as best we can tell, the jail consid-\\nered newspapers contraband because the Inmate Handbook\\ndid not expressly say inmates could possess them. Jail officials\\nviewed the Law Bulletin as a newspaper because (and appar-\\nently only because) it was printed on newsprint.\\n Adding to the confusion, however, is that during this same\\nperiod the jail permitted inmates to receive personal\\nsubscriptions to Prison Legal News. This was so even though\\nPrison Legal News, just like the Law Bulletin, is printed on\\nnewsprint. So, too, was Prison Legal News not listed as a\\npermitted item in the JCDC Inmate Handbook.\\n B\\n In 2014, after learning that copies of the Law Bulletin had\\nbeen delivered to the JCDC and filing multiple grievances\\nwith the jail, Miller filed a pro se complaint alleging that the\\njail’s disposal of the publication, especially with no notice to\\nhim, violated the First Amendment and the Due Process\\nClause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\\n Upon screening Miller’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1915A, the district court determined that Miller stated a\\ncolorable First Amendment claim against three jail officials\\nand the Kankakee County Sheriff. Following discovery the\\ndefendants moved for summary judgment. Although Miller’s\\n\\f4 No. 17-1507\\n\\nsuit focused narrowly on the JCDC’s prohibition of the Law\\nBulletin—which he repeatedly stressed and explained was a\\nlegal publication and not a daily newspaper akin to the\\nChicago Tribune—the defendants’ motion instead asked the\\ndistrict court to treat Miller’s claims as broadly challenging\\nthe JCDC’s newspaper ban. They argued that safety and\\nsecurity risks posed by excess paper in the jail warranted a\\ntotal ban on newspapers, including the Law Bulletin.\\n The district court accepted the defendants’ framing of the\\nissue and granted their motion. Applying the four-factor test\\nannounced in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the court con-\\ncluded that the newspaper ban was permissible given the\\njail’s security, safety, and staffing concerns. The summary\\njudgment record, as the district court saw it, showed that in-\\nmates had used newspapers to flood cells and conceal contra-\\nband—circumstances justifying a categorical ban. The court\\nalso found that the defendants provided evidence that allow-\\ning inmates personal newspaper subscriptions “would un-\\nnecessarily strain staff resources in monitoring the amount of\\npaper within the facility and sorting the incoming mail.” The\\npolicy was not an “exaggerated response to legitimate peno-\\nlogical concerns,” the court continued, because the jail af-\\nforded inmates alternative ways to stay current on the news\\n(for example, by watching television) and to work on their le-\\ngal cases by reading Prison Legal News and using the jail’s law\\nlibrary.\\n On appeal, and now represented by counsel, Miller re-\\nnews his contention that the confiscation of the Law Bulletin\\nviolated his rights under the First Amendment. He also ar-\\ngues the district court committed error by altogether failing to\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 5\\n\\naddress, and perhaps implicitly rejecting, his due process\\nclaim.\\n II\\n A\\n The district court painted with much too broad a brush\\nand resolved a case never brought by Joseph Miller. Miller is\\na gifted writer and his pro se complaint, prepared in pencil on\\nnotebook paper, was remarkable for its clarity and precision.\\nHe alleged that the defendant jail officials violated his consti-\\ntutional rights by confiscating not a newspaper of general cir-\\nculation, but rather a legal publication, the Law Bulletin. He\\nexplained that he needed the publication because the JCDC\\nhad neither a law library nor any research materials concern-\\ning federal case law.\\n Miller took the same care in opposing the defendants’ mo-\\ntion for summary judgment, emphasizing that permitting him\\n(and other federal inmates housed in the Kankakee facility) to\\nreceive the Law Bulletin (or another legal publication) would\\nnot flood the facility with paper, overwhelm mailroom staff,\\nor create excessive security risks. In plain and simple terms,\\nMiller implored the district court to treat his claims for what\\nthey were—a lawsuit challenging the JCDC’s prohibition and\\nconfiscation of a legal publication—and not for what they\\nwere not—a request to receive a newspaper.\\n Though Miller may not have realized it, his submissions\\nto the district court aligned perfectly with the precept that\\nfederal courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, should strive\\nto decide constitutional cases narrowly and refrain from an-\\nswering questions broader than necessary to resolve the case\\nor controversy before them. The symmetry between Miller’s\\n\\f6 No. 17-1507\\n\\nposition and the principle of narrow constitutional decision-\\nmaking jumps off the pages of his submissions to the district\\ncourt. And it is this exact principle that charts a straightfor-\\nward course for resolving Miller’s claims.\\n The resolution of Miller’s claims on summary judgment\\ndid not require the district court to answer whether a jail’s\\nblanket ban on newspapers offends the First Amendment.\\nMiller’s counsel rightly observes that the trendline on that\\nquestion favors Miller. But the defendants are equally right to\\nobserve that the question entails complexity because some of\\nthe pertinent precedent, including our prior decision in\\nKincaid v. Rusk, 670 F.2d 737 (7th Cir. 1982), predates the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Turner. In Turner the Court\\nmodified preexisting law by announcing a new four-factor\\ntest for assessing prison regulations that impinge on inmates’\\nconstitutional rights. See 482 U.S. at 89–91. There is no dispute\\nthat the Turner test applies where, as here, a policy implicates\\na prisoner’s First Amendment rights, including the right to\\nread while detained. See King v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 415 F.3d\\n634, 638 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Freedom of speech is not merely\\nfreedom to speak; it is also freedom to read.”). And so too are\\nthe defendants right to observe that a proper analysis of\\nMiller’s claim would have to consider whether qualified\\nimmunity shielded them from liability if the JCDC’s blanket\\nnewspaper ban transgressed the First Amendment.\\n Another factor counseling in favor of taking Miller’s claim\\nas he pleaded it is that the Kankakee facility overhauled its\\npublication policy in June 2015. The JCDC now supplies the\\nfacility with multiple daily copies of USA Today and permits\\ninmates to receive subscriptions to up to four magazines per\\nmonth. This change suggests that broadly ruling on the\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 7\\n\\nconstitutionality of the JCDC’s prior policy was unnecessary.\\nAnd this is particularly so given that just days after Miller\\nfiled his complaint—seeking not only money damages but\\nalso declaratory and injunctive relief—the district court\\nlearned he was transferred to another facility, rendering his\\nrequest for injunctive relief moot. Put differently, when faced\\nwith a First Amendment challenge to an outdated policy\\nbrought by an inmate no longer housed at the facility in ques-\\ntion, the district court should have resolved the case on nar-\\nrower grounds, focusing precisely on the case and contro-\\nversy brought by Miller. See generally ISI Int’l v. Borden Ladner\\nGervais LLP, 256 F.3d 548, 552 (7th Cir. 2001) (emphasizing\\nthat “federal courts are supposed to do what they can to avoid\\nmaking constitutional decisions, and strive doubly to avoid\\nmaking unnecessary constitutional decisions”).\\n The proper path was to answer the narrow and specific\\nclaim advanced by Miller—whether the jail’s confiscation of\\nhis subscription to the Law Bulletin violated the First Amend-\\nment. See Hedgwood v. City of Eau Claire, 676 F.3d 600, 603 (7th\\nCir. 2012) (explaining that principles of “judicial restraint”\\ncounsel in favor of resolving “as-applied challenges before fa-\\ncial ones in an effort to decide constitutional attacks on the\\nnarrowest possible grounds and to avoid reaching unneces-\\nsary constitutional issues”).\\n B\\n Similar considerations caution against us reaching the\\nmerits of Miller’s First Amendment claim in the first instance.\\nThe better approach is to allow the district court and parties\\nthe initial opportunity to address the issues presented anew\\nand through the narrower frame of how the Turner factors\\n\\f8 No. 17-1507\\n\\napply to the JCDC’s confiscation of Miller’s subscription to a\\nlegal publication, the Law Bulletin.\\n Suffice it for us to offer but a few observations relevant to\\na narrowed consideration of the Turner factors. The district\\ncourt’s initial assessment of Miller’s claim rooted itself in facts\\nunsupported by the summary judgment record. For example,\\nthe court assessed the second Turner factor (whether alterna-\\ntive means of exercising the asserted right—here the right to\\nreceive and read legal publications—remain available to the\\ninmate) on the view that the JCDC had a law library with re-\\nsources on federal case law available to federal inmates like\\nMiller. The record shows otherwise. The JCDC had no law li-\\nbrary, and while inmates had access to an electronic database\\nwith Illinois legal resources, Miller contends that there was a\\ndearth of material on federal law in the jail—a point that went\\nuncontested by the defendants.\\n On this same factor, it appears that the JCDC’s policy\\n(throughout Miller’s detention) allowed inmates to receive\\nsubscriptions to Prison Legal News. The district court viewed\\nthis access as important without recognizing that the record\\nleft unclear whether, contrary to the jail’s policy, inmates were\\nin fact being allowed to receive the publication. Regardless, it\\nis not enough to say, as the district court suggested, that one\\nlegal publication is just like the next and thus Prison Legal\\nNews sufficed to serve a federal inmate’s every legal need.\\nWhat is more, the district court failed to recognize that Prison\\nLegal News—just like the Law Bulletin—is published on news-\\nprint, a fact casting at least some doubt on the JCDCʹs conten-\\ntion that banning all newsprint publications was essential to\\nprison safety, a consideration relevant to the first Turner fac-\\ntor.\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 9\\n\\n On remand, the right analysis asks whether permitting in-\\nmates to receive subscriptions to legal publications (subject to\\nreasonable limitations) jeopardized institutional objectives to\\nsuch an extent as to justify the JCDC’s confiscation of the Law\\nBulletin. On this front we make three final observations. First,\\nthe district court did not consider whether the JCDC’s change\\nof policy in 2015—to allow inmates to receive up to four mag-\\nazine subscriptions—warranted discounting the rationale\\nsupporting the JCDC’s decision to ban the Law Bulletin (and,\\nif so, to what degree) due to concerns associated with excess\\npaper. See Turner, 482 U.S. at 89 (“[T]here must be a ‘valid,\\nrational connection’ between the prison regulation and the le-\\ngitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it.”)\\n(quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984)).\\n Second, the record on summary judgment contained very\\nfew examples of any publications being used to create safety\\nrisks within the facility. And none of the examples the defend-\\nants did provide relate to newsprint publications. Though\\nmindful that courts must afford substantial deference to\\nprison administrators on matters of institutional security, see\\nOverton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003), that latitude is not\\nboundless: defendants still must present evidence “demon-\\nstrating a specific security concern that bears a nexus to the\\nprohibited conduct.” Riker v. Lemmon, 798 F.3d 546, 557 (7th\\nCir. 2015).\\n Third, we note based on the public record that the JCDC’s\\nprohibition of the Law Bulletin seems in substantial tension, if\\nnot direct conflict, with the County Jail Standards promul-\\ngated by the State of Illinois. See Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20,\\n§ 701.180 (providing that inmates in county facilities “may re-\\nceive … periodicals subject to inspection and approval by jail\\n\\f10 No. 17-1507\\n\\npersonnel”). The record is silent as to whether the JCDC is a\\nfacility subject to the County Jail Standards, and, if so, what\\nspecific security concerns prevented the facility from adher-\\ning to the regulation and allowing Miller to receive his sub-\\nscription to the Law Bulletin. That the Jail Standards seem to\\npermit inmates to receive all periodicals, while still ensuring\\nprison safety, suggests that Kankakee’s prohibition of an even\\nnarrower class of publications (specifically, legal publica-\\ntions) was an exaggerated response to its proffered security\\nconcerns, a consideration relevant to the entire Turner analy-\\nsis. See Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528 (2006). This too war-\\nrants consideration on remand.\\n III\\n We owe a final word to Miller’s procedural due process\\nclaim. Miller alleged that jail officials confiscated and de-\\nstroyed his copies of the Law Bulletin without any notice or\\nopportunity for him to appeal this action. In his amended\\ncomplaint, he expressly cast this allegation in terms of a vio-\\nlation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\\nThe district court, however, did not address this claim, per-\\nhaps on the view that it was entirely duplicative of Miller’s\\nFirst Amendment claim. But that is not so. Indeed, at a\\nbroader level, the imperative of fair process may take on\\nadded significance in the domain of free speech. See, e.g.,\\nHenry P. Monaghan, First Amendment “Due Process,” 83 Harv.\\nL. Rev. 518 (1970).\\n Due process requires that the decision to censor inmate\\nmail must be accompanied by “minimum procedural safe-\\nguards.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417 (1974), over-\\nruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401\\n(1989); see also Perry v. Secʹy, Fla. Depʹt of Corr., 664 F.3d 1359,\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 11\\n\\n1368 (11th Cir. 2011) (applying this standard to a due process\\nclaim). This standard has generally required officials to pro-\\nvide inmates with notice and an opportunity to object to a\\nconfiscation of their mail. See Martinez, 416 U.S. at 418. Miller\\ndeserves the opportunity on remand to have this claim con-\\nsidered under these standards.\\n For these reasons, we VACATE the judgment of the district\\ncourt and REMAND for further proceedings.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":686,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589154,"string":"4,589,154"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Ronnie L. Winsted, Jr. v. Nancy A. Berryhill"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2228"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before MANION, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BRENNAN, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 18‐2228 \\nRONNIE L. WINSTED, JR., \\n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \\n v. \\n\\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL, \\nActing Commissioner of Social Security, \\n Defendant‐Appellee. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court \\n for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. \\n No. 2:17‐cv‐00137‐MJD‐WTL — Mark J. Dinsmore, Magistrate Judge. \\n\\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 24, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before MANION, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. \\n BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Ronnie Winsted applied for disa‐\\nbility insurance benefits and supplemental security income \\nclaiming disability based on numerous conditions, including \\ndegenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, and anxiety. An \\nadministrative law judge denied benefits, finding that Win‐\\nsted could work with certain limitations. After the district \\n\\f2 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\ncourt upheld this denial, Winsted appealed, arguing the ALJ \\ndid not consider his difficulties with concentration, persis‐\\ntence, and pace. We agree—the ALJ did not adequately \\nexplain how the limitations he placed on Winsted’s residual \\nfunctional capacity accounted for the claimant’s mental diffi‐\\nculties, so we remand to the agency. \\n I. Background \\n Winsted was 42 years old when he applied for benefits, \\nasserting an onset date of October 2010. Although he initially \\nalleged he became disabled in 2005, two prior applications \\nalleging this onset date were denied and deemed administra‐\\ntively final. \\n \\n\\n Winsted suffers from multiple physical impairments, \\nmostly associated with his previous work in hard labor as an \\nindustrial truck driver, a highway maintenance worker, and \\nan operating engineer. MRIs taken in 2010 and 2011 showed \\nhe had focal, isolated degenerative disc disease. Other tests \\nrevealed osteoarthritis, mild carpal tunnel syndrome in his \\nhands, and cavus (high‐arched) foot that he treats with special \\nshoes. \\n \\n\\n Winsted complained of shortness of breath in May 2011 \\nand was diagnosed with acute bronchitis and chronic obstruc‐\\ntive pulmonary disease (“COPD”). Although he wheezed at \\ntimes, he often responded well to medication. Throughout the \\nrelevant period, Winsted sometimes complained of wheez‐\\ning, but often his lungs were clear. A pulmonary function test \\nin 2013, however, showed Winsted had moderate obstructive \\nlung disease and possibly restrictive lung disease. \\n \\n\\n Winsted began seeing an internist, Dr. Nedu Gopala, for \\nback pain in August 2013. The doctor prescribed medication \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 3\\n\\nfor Winsted’s breathing, chest pain, back pain, and anxiety. \\nAt appointments throughout 2013 and into March 2015, \\nWinsted’s range of motion in his arms and legs alternated \\nfrom full, to limited. He maintained a chronic cough, mild \\nshortness of breath, and wheezing, though a 2014 pulmonary \\nfunction test did not show any evidence of lung obstruction. \\n \\n\\n To address stress‐related heart issues, Winsted sought \\nmental‐health treatment in 2012. A therapist diagnosed him \\nwith a panic disorder, post‐traumatic stress disorder, and \\nmajor depressive disorder. Winsted had a guarded attitude, \\n“very little insight,” “below average” intellect, and was \\nassigned a Global Assessment of Function (“GAF”) of 51, \\nindicating he had moderate difficulty in social and occupa‐\\ntional functioning.1 AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, DIAGNOSTIC AND \\nSTATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS 32 (4th ed. 1994). \\nIn his therapy appointments, Winsted regularly complained \\nabout altercations with neighbors. \\n \\n\\n Later that year, Winsted sought treatment from a psychia‐\\ntrist, who diagnosed major depressive disorder and assigned \\na GAF of 45, indicating a serious impairment in social or \\noccupational functioning. AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, supra. The \\npsychiatrist reported that Winsted was tense, anxious, “very \\nrestless,” and moderately depressed. He prescribed medica‐\\ntion for anxiety and depression and continued to treat Win‐\\nsted. \\n \\n\\n \\n1 The GAF, which assesses an “individual’s overall level of functioning,” \\n\\nCraft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 676 n.7 (7th Cir. 2008), is no longer widely \\nused by psychiatrists and psychologists, but it was sometimes referred to \\nin social security disability hearings during Winsted’s proceedings. \\nSee Price v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 836, 839 (7th Cir. 2015). \\n\\f4 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n Between September 2013 and February 2015, Winsted’s \\nmental health fluctuated. In September 2013, Winsted’s \\npsychiatrist reported that his affect was appropriate, his \\nmood was not depressed, and “on the whole [he was] doing \\nbetter.” But two months later, Winsted’s affect was anxious, \\nhis mood was depressed, he was “feeling more irritable, \\nanxious, and restless,” and he suffered panic attacks. At a \\ntherapy session in July 2014, a therapist reported Winsted’s \\n“symptoms of depression and worry impair overall function‐\\ning,” and in August and November 2014, he was “mildly \\ndepressed.” But in February 2015, Winsted presented with an \\nappropriate affect and a not‐depressed mood. The same was \\ntrue in April 2015, though Winsted reported he sometimes felt \\n“tense and anxious” and stress continued to cause him to \\n“become overwhelmed.” \\n \\n\\n The disability application also triggered an examination in \\n2013 from an agency psychologist, Dr. Steven Marlow, who \\ndiagnosed Winsted with major depressive disorder, a gener‐\\nalized anxiety disorder, and a panic disorder. Specifically, he \\nreported Winsted “has a[n] avoidant, hostile, and easily \\ndistracted attitude.” Dr. Marlow determined Winsted had \\nbelow average levels of mental control, understanding and \\nmemory, and concentration; poor levels of persistence; and he \\ndid not do well in social situations. \\n \\n\\n A state‐agency physician, Dr. George Siderys, also exam‐\\nined Winsted in 2013 and opined he had a mild functional \\nimpairment. This included: “mild decrease in range of mo‐\\ntion,” pain that would be “expected to cause him problems \\nwith prolonged standing, walking, or heavy lifting,” and a \\nhistory of heart difficulties that would cause him to “wear out \\nif he participated in prolonged walking or lifting.” \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 5\\n\\n \\n\\n In connection with Winsted’s disability claim, treating \\nphysician Dr. Gopala completed a physical residual func‐\\ntional capacity (“RFC”) questionnaire in early 2015 and \\nreported Winsted suffered from hypertension, COPD, and \\nback pain, and described Winsted’s prognosis for back pain \\nas “poor.” He determined Winsted had a “painful range of \\nmovement” and was incapable of performing even “low \\nstress” work. Dr. Gopala also wrote that Winsted’s symptoms \\nwould affect his attention and concentration frequently; he \\ncould walk only about one block; and he could sit or stand for \\nonly 15 minutes at a time. \\n \\n\\n In April 2015, treating therapist Jessica Nevill filled out a \\nmental RFC questionnaire. She opined Winsted had marked \\nimpairments in his abilities to: relate to other people, respond \\nto supervision, respond to work pressures, and respond \\nappropriately to changes in the work setting. She wrote \\nWinsted would miss work three to four days per month \\nbecause of his impairments. \\n \\n\\n After the Social Security Administration denied Winsted’s \\napplication, he had a hearing before an ALJ. Winsted testified \\nhe used an inhaler twice a day, slept with a CPAP machine, \\nused a nebulizer for breathing every three months, and con‐\\ntinued to smoke a half‐a‐pack of cigarettes per day. He said \\nhe could not grip a two‐liter bottle with his left hand. Due to \\nthe pain in his knees and feet, he said he could stand for only \\na few minutes and, even then, he could not stand still. He also \\nsaid he could walk only a few blocks before needing to stop \\nand catch his breath, and experienced chest pain three to four \\ntimes per week. He noted he has trouble getting along with \\npeople and does not like to be around groups. \\n \\n\\f6 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n After Winsted testified, the ALJ asked the vocational \\nexpert (“VE”) three hypothetical questions. First, the ALJ \\nasked the VE to consider an individual of the same age, \\neducation, and work experience as Winsted. He continued: \\n \\n\\n This hypothetical individual would be capable \\n of light work, but four hours maximum stand‐\\n ing and walking in an eight hour day, only \\n occasional climbing of ramps, and stairs, but no \\n ropes, ladders, or scaffolds, only occasional bal‐\\n ancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and \\n crawling. Frequent, but not constant handling \\n and fingering bilaterally. This individual would \\n need to avoid concentrated exposure to breath‐\\n ing irritants, such as fumes, orders, dust, and \\n gasses, as well as wet, slippery surfaces, and \\n unprotected heights and would further be \\n limited to only simply reaching, repetitive tasks, \\n with few workplace changes, no team work, \\n and no interactions with the public. \\n \\n\\nThe expert determined such a person could work as a bench \\nassembler, electronics worker, or production assembler. In \\nthe second hypothetical, the ALJ asked about an individual \\nwith the same limitations as in the first hypothetical, but who \\nalso “due to impair‐related symptoms, such as the need to lay \\ndown during the day to relieve pain would be off task 20% of \\nthe work day.” The VE replied that such an individual could \\nnot sustain employment. Finally, the ALJ asked about a per‐\\nson with all the same limitations as provided in the first hy‐\\npothetical, “but due to the frequency of bad days versus good \\ndays, this individual would have two unscheduled absences \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 7\\n\\nper month.” Again, the VE answered, “there would be no \\njobs.” \\n \\n\\n The ALJ conducted the Administration’s 5‐step analysis, \\nsee 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), § 416.920(a), and found Winsted \\nnot disabled. At Step 1 the ALJ determined Winsted had not \\nengaged in substantial gainful activity since October 22, 2010. \\nAt Step 2 the ALJ identified Winsted’s severe impairments as \\ndegenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, bilateral carpal \\ntunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis in his left knee, bilateral \\ncavus foot, COPD, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, an affec‐\\ntive disorder, and an anxiety disorder. At Step 3 the ALJ \\nacknowledged Winsted had moderate difficulty with social \\nfunctioning and concentration, persistence, and pace because \\nof his mental‐health issues, but concluded these severe \\nimpairments did not meet a listing for presumptive disability. \\nBetween Steps 3 and 4 the ALJ determined Winsted had the \\nrequisite RFC to perform light work with certain limitations \\n(as provided in the first hypothetical, and including being \\nlimited to “simple, routine, repetitive tasks with few work‐\\nplace changes, no team work, and no interaction with the pub‐\\nlic”) but his limitations precluded him from performing his \\npast relevant work (Step 4). At Step 5 the ALJ concluded, \\nbased on Winsted’s age, education, work experience, and \\nRFC, that he was capable of successfully changing to other \\nwork. \\n \\n\\n Winsted appealed to the agency’s Appeals Council, which \\ndenied review. He then sought judicial review, and the par‐\\nties agreed to have a magistrate judge adjudicate this case. \\nSee 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). That judge upheld the ALJ’s decision. \\n\\f8 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n II. Analysis \\n \\n\\n A. ALJ’s Evaluation of Winsted’s Limitations in Concen‐\\n tration, Persistence, and Pace \\n \\n\\n Winsted argues neither the ALJ’s RFC nor his first hypo‐\\nthetical question properly accounted for the finding that he \\nhas “moderate” difficulties with concentration, persistence, \\nand pace. He submits the ALJ’s proposed limitations—that \\nWinsted perform only “simple, routine, repetitive tasks with \\nfew workplace changes”—fail to address his concentra‐\\ntion‐functioning deficits because “both the hypothetical \\nposed to the VE and the ALJ’s RFC assessment must incorpo‐\\nrate all of the claimant’s limitations supported by the medical \\nrecord.” Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 2015). \\n \\n\\n Winsted’s argument here is correct. Again and again, we \\nhave said that when an ALJ finds there are documented \\nlimitations of concentration, persistence, and pace, the hypo‐\\nthetical question presented to the VE must account for these \\nlimitations. Moreno v. Berryhill, 882 F.3d 722, 730 (7th Cir. \\n2018); Varga, 794 F.3d at 814‐15; OʹConnor‐Spinner v. Astrue, \\n627 F.3d 614, 620 (7th Cir. 2010); Stewart v. Astrue, 561 F.3d \\n679, 684 (7th Cir. 2009); Kasarsky v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 539, 544 \\n(7th Cir. 2003); see also Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1003 \\n(7th Cir. 2004). We have also made clear that in most cases \\n“employing terms like ‘simple, repetitive tasks on their own \\nwill not necessarily exclude from the VE’s consideration those \\npositions that present significant problems of concentration, \\npersistence and pace,” and thus, alone, are insufficient to pre‐\\nsent the claimant’s limitations in this area. OʹConnor‐Spinner, \\n627 F.3d at 620; see Moreno, 882 F.3d at 730. Here, at Step 3 the \\nALJ found Winsted’s moderate difficulties with \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 9\\n\\nconcentration, persistence, and pace could cause problems \\nwith concentration and following written instructions, as well \\nas stress with changes in his routine. And Winsted’s psychia‐\\ntrist and therapist both remarked that stress caused Winsted \\nto “become overwhelmed” and his depression impaired his \\noverall functioning. \\n \\n\\n But the first hypothetical the ALJ posed to the VE did not \\ndirect the expert to consider problems with concentration, \\npersistence, and pace, which is the hypothetical the ALJ relied \\non for the RFC. Though particular words need not be \\nincanted, we cannot look at the absence of the phrase “moder‐\\nate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and pace” and \\nfeel confident this limitation was properly incorporated in the \\nRFC and in the hypothetical question. See OʹConnor‐Spinner, \\n627 F.3d at 619. The ALJ may have thought, as the agency \\nproposes, he was addressing Winsted’s concentration diffi‐\\nculties by including limitations that would minimize social \\ninteraction. But that restriction could just have likely been \\nmeant to account for Winsted’s moderate difficulty with \\nsocial functioning—the ALJ acknowledged Winsted experi‐\\nences anxiety, panic attacks, and irritability when he is around \\npeople. Nothing in the hypothetical question and the RFC, \\nhowever, accounted for the ALJ’s discussion of how \\nWinsted’s low GAF scores reflect serious mental‐health \\nsymptoms or his mention that Winsted often “appeared tense, \\nanxious, and/or restless” without interacting with other people. \\nAdditionally, where a claimant’s limitations are stress‐\\nrelated, as Winsted’s appear to be, the hypothetical question \\nshould account for the level of stress a claimant can handle. \\nSee Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816, 820, 823 (7th Cir. 2007); \\nJohansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283, 285, 288–89 (7th Cir. 2002). \\n\\f10 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\nBut there was no restriction related to stress in the RFC or \\nhypothetical question. \\n \\n\\n Notably, it appears the ALJ disregarded testimony from \\nthe VE about a person with limitations in concentration, per‐\\nsistence, and pace. The ALJ asked two additional hypothetical \\nquestions of the VE about an individual who would either be \\noff task 20% of the workday or would have two unscheduled \\nabsences per month—presumably assuming someone with \\n“moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and \\npace.” The VE responded that neither individual could \\nsustain employment. But these responses are not reflected in \\nthe ALJ’s decision, which means it cannot stand. \\n \\n\\n B. ALJ’s Evaluation of the Medical Opinion Evidence \\n \\n\\n Winsted also challenges the evidentiary weight the ALJ \\ngave to four medical opinions, two from treating medical \\nprofessionals (Dr. Gopala and Ms. Nevill) and two from state \\nagency doctors (examining psychologist Dr. Marlow and \\nconsultative examiner Dr. Siderys). \\n \\n\\n Before reaching the merits of this argument, we must \\naddress the agency’s contention that Winsted waived it. The \\nagency is not correct on this; Winsted never “knowingly and \\nintelligently relinquished” his claim, Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. \\n463, 470 n.4 (2012). That he developed the argument poorly \\nmeans at most he forfeited it. Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, \\n254 (7th Cir. 2016). \\n \\n\\n Forfeited or not, this argument fails. In the decision, the \\nALJ adequately articulated why he gave each opinion the \\nweight he did, entitling his decision, in this respect, to our \\ndeference. See Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413, 416 (7th Cir. \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 11\\n\\n2008). Starting with Dr. Gopala, the ALJ appropriately ques‐\\ntioned the doctor’s conclusion—that Winsted had a painful \\nrange of motion that made him incapable of engaging in \\n“low‐stress” work—in light of other record evidence. This \\nincluded Dr. Gopala’s own notes, which showed Winsted \\nregularly had a full range of motion, no gross sensory or \\nmotor deficits, fine motor skills within normal limits, and \\nlungs that “have often been clear.” And though treating phy‐\\nsician’s opinions, like Dr. Gopala’s, are usually entitled to \\ncontrolling weight, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96‐2p,2 \\nan ALJ may discredit the opinion if it is inconsistent with the \\nrecord. See Loveless v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir. 2016); \\nCampbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010); 20 C.F.R. \\n§ 404.1527(c)(2). \\n \\n\\n Next, Winsted argues the ALJ erred in giving little eviden‐\\ntiary weight to Ms. Nevill’s mental RFC assessment. But the \\nALJ wrote he discounted her report because she was a \\nnon‐medical professional, and thus not an “acceptable medi‐\\ncal source” See 20 CFR § 404.1513(a), § 416.913(a). Also, her \\nfindings were “based solely on [Winsted’s] subjective \\ncomplaints”—an appropriate reason for an ALJ to discount \\nan opinion, see Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. \\n2008). Additionally, he found Ms. Nevill’s report, like Dr. Go‐\\npala’s, was inconsistent with Winsted’s medical‐health record \\nas a whole. See Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2012) \\n(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)‐(3)). \\n \\n\\n\\n\\n \\n2 The treating‐physician rule, which was eliminated for claims filed after \\n\\nMarch 27, 2017, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (2017), still applies to Winsted’s \\nearlier filed claim, see Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018); \\n20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. \\n\\f12 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n Finally, Winsted claims the ALJ gave short shrift to the \\ntwo state examiners’ 2013 opinions, asserting the ALJ erred in \\ndiscussing the state psychologist’s evaluation “in one \\nsentence” and the state physician’s opinion in a footnote. But \\nas the agency points out, the ALJ discussed these opinions \\nthroughout the decision. The ALJ cited the state psycholo‐\\ngist’s findings when discussing Winsted’s mental‐health \\ndiagnosis, and referred repeatedly to the state physician’s \\nopinion throughout his discussion of Winsted’s gait, grip \\nstrength, and scattered wheezing. The court applies a \\ncommon‐sense reading to the entirety of an ALJ’s decision. \\nRice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363, 369 (7th Cir. 2004); Shramek \\nv. Apfel, 226 F.3d 809, 811 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, the ALJ ade‐\\nquately articulated his reasons for discounting these two \\nopinions—both reports were based on only one evaluation \\nand largely reflected Winsted’s subjective reporting. See Elder, \\n529 F.3d at 416; Rice, 384 F.3d at 371 (ALJs should rely on \\nmedical opinions “based on objective observations,” not \\n“subjective complaints.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(i) (ALJs \\nshould consider “frequency of examination” in weight it \\nassigns opinion). \\n \\n\\n III. Conclusion \\n \\n\\n Because the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the vocational \\nexaminer and the residual function capacity did not capture \\none of Winsted’s most significant problems—his concentra‐\\ntion‐functioning deficits—we conclude further proceedings \\nare necessary on that issue only. Therefore, we REVERSE the \\ndistrict court judgment and REMAND this case to the Social \\nSecurity Administration.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4366407/\", \"author_raw\": \"BRENNAN, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589154/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Ronnie L. Winsted, Jr. v. Nancy A. Berryhill\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 18‐2228 \nRONNIE L. WINSTED, JR., \n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \n v. \n\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL, \nActing Commissioner of Social Security, \n Defendant‐Appellee. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court \n for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. \n No. 2:17‐cv‐00137‐MJD‐WTL — Mark J. Dinsmore, Magistrate Judge. \n\n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED JANUARY 24, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before MANION, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. \n BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Ronnie Winsted applied for disa‐\nbility insurance benefits and supplemental security income \nclaiming disability based on numerous conditions, including \ndegenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, and anxiety. An \nadministrative law judge denied benefits, finding that Win‐\nsted could work with certain limitations. After the district \n\f2 No. 18‐2228 \n\ncourt upheld this denial, Winsted appealed, arguing the ALJ \ndid not consider his difficulties with concentration, persis‐\ntence, and pace. We agree—the ALJ did not adequately \nexplain how the limitations he placed on Winsted’s residual \nfunctional capacity accounted for the claimant’s mental diffi‐\nculties, so we remand to the agency. \n I. Background \n Winsted was 42 years old when he applied for benefits, \nasserting an onset date of October 2010. Although he initially \nalleged he became disabled in 2005, two prior applications \nalleging this onset date were denied and deemed administra‐\ntively final. \n \n\n Winsted suffers from multiple physical impairments, \nmostly associated with his previous work in hard labor as an \nindustrial truck driver, a highway maintenance worker, and \nan operating engineer. MRIs taken in 2010 and 2011 showed \nhe had focal, isolated degenerative disc disease. Other tests \nrevealed osteoarthritis, mild carpal tunnel syndrome in his \nhands, and cavus (high‐arched) foot that he treats with special \nshoes. \n \n\n Winsted complained of shortness of breath in May 2011 \nand was diagnosed with acute bronchitis and chronic obstruc‐\ntive pulmonary disease (“COPD”). Although he wheezed at \ntimes, he often responded well to medication. Throughout the \nrelevant period, Winsted sometimes complained of wheez‐\ning, but often his lungs were clear. A pulmonary function test \nin 2013, however, showed Winsted had moderate obstructive \nlung disease and possibly restrictive lung disease. \n \n\n Winsted began seeing an internist, Dr. Nedu Gopala, for \nback pain in August 2013. The doctor prescribed medication \n\fNo. 18‐2228 3\n\nfor Winsted’s breathing, chest pain, back pain, and anxiety. \nAt appointments throughout 2013 and into March 2015, \nWinsted’s range of motion in his arms and legs alternated \nfrom full, to limited. He maintained a chronic cough, mild \nshortness of breath, and wheezing, though a 2014 pulmonary \nfunction test did not show any evidence of lung obstruction. \n \n\n To address stress‐related heart issues, Winsted sought \nmental‐health treatment in 2012. A therapist diagnosed him \nwith a panic disorder, post‐traumatic stress disorder, and \nmajor depressive disorder. Winsted had a guarded attitude, \n“very little insight,” “below average” intellect, and was \nassigned a Global Assessment of Function (“GAF”) of 51, \nindicating he had moderate difficulty in social and occupa‐\ntional functioning.1 AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, DIAGNOSTIC AND \nSTATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS 32 (4th ed. 1994). \nIn his therapy appointments, Winsted regularly complained \nabout altercations with neighbors. \n \n\n Later that year, Winsted sought treatment from a psychia‐\ntrist, who diagnosed major depressive disorder and assigned \na GAF of 45, indicating a serious impairment in social or \noccupational functioning. AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, supra. The \npsychiatrist reported that Winsted was tense, anxious, “very \nrestless,” and moderately depressed. He prescribed medica‐\ntion for anxiety and depression and continued to treat Win‐\nsted. \n \n\n \n1 The GAF, which assesses an “individual’s overall level of functioning,” \n\nCraft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 676 n.7 (7th Cir. 2008), is no longer widely \nused by psychiatrists and psychologists, but it was sometimes referred to \nin social security disability hearings during Winsted’s proceedings. \nSee Price v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 836, 839 (7th Cir. 2015). \n\f4 No. 18‐2228 \n\n Between September 2013 and February 2015, Winsted’s \nmental health fluctuated. In September 2013, Winsted’s \npsychiatrist reported that his affect was appropriate, his \nmood was not depressed, and “on the whole [he was] doing \nbetter.” But two months later, Winsted’s affect was anxious, \nhis mood was depressed, he was “feeling more irritable, \nanxious, and restless,” and he suffered panic attacks. At a \ntherapy session in July 2014, a therapist reported Winsted’s \n“symptoms of depression and worry impair overall function‐\ning,” and in August and November 2014, he was “mildly \ndepressed.” But in February 2015, Winsted presented with an \nappropriate affect and a not‐depressed mood. The same was \ntrue in April 2015, though Winsted reported he sometimes felt \n“tense and anxious” and stress continued to cause him to \n“become overwhelmed.” \n \n\n The disability application also triggered an examination in \n2013 from an agency psychologist, Dr. Steven Marlow, who \ndiagnosed Winsted with major depressive disorder, a gener‐\nalized anxiety disorder, and a panic disorder. Specifically, he \nreported Winsted “has a[n] avoidant, hostile, and easily \ndistracted attitude.” Dr. Marlow determined Winsted had \nbelow average levels of mental control, understanding and \nmemory, and concentration; poor levels of persistence; and he \ndid not do well in social situations. \n \n\n A state‐agency physician, Dr. George Siderys, also exam‐\nined Winsted in 2013 and opined he had a mild functional \nimpairment. This included: “mild decrease in range of mo‐\ntion,” pain that would be “expected to cause him problems \nwith prolonged standing, walking, or heavy lifting,” and a \nhistory of heart difficulties that would cause him to “wear out \nif he participated in prolonged walking or lifting.” \n\fNo. 18‐2228 5\n\n \n\n In connection with Winsted’s disability claim, treating \nphysician Dr. Gopala completed a physical residual func‐\ntional capacity (“RFC”) questionnaire in early 2015 and \nreported Winsted suffered from hypertension, COPD, and \nback pain, and described Winsted’s prognosis for back pain \nas “poor.” He determined Winsted had a “painful range of \nmovement” and was incapable of performing even “low \nstress” work. Dr. Gopala also wrote that Winsted’s symptoms \nwould affect his attention and concentration frequently; he \ncould walk only about one block; and he could sit or stand for \nonly 15 minutes at a time. \n \n\n In April 2015, treating therapist Jessica Nevill filled out a \nmental RFC questionnaire. She opined Winsted had marked \nimpairments in his abilities to: relate to other people, respond \nto supervision, respond to work pressures, and respond \nappropriately to changes in the work setting. She wrote \nWinsted would miss work three to four days per month \nbecause of his impairments. \n \n\n After the Social Security Administration denied Winsted’s \napplication, he had a hearing before an ALJ. Winsted testified \nhe used an inhaler twice a day, slept with a CPAP machine, \nused a nebulizer for breathing every three months, and con‐\ntinued to smoke a half‐a‐pack of cigarettes per day. He said \nhe could not grip a two‐liter bottle with his left hand. Due to \nthe pain in his knees and feet, he said he could stand for only \na few minutes and, even then, he could not stand still. He also \nsaid he could walk only a few blocks before needing to stop \nand catch his breath, and experienced chest pain three to four \ntimes per week. He noted he has trouble getting along with \npeople and does not like to be around groups. \n \n\f6 No. 18‐2228 \n\n After Winsted testified, the ALJ asked the vocational \nexpert (“VE”) three hypothetical questions. First, the ALJ \nasked the VE to consider an individual of the same age, \neducation, and work experience as Winsted. He continued: \n \n\n This hypothetical individual would be capable \n of light work, but four hours maximum stand‐\n ing and walking in an eight hour day, only \n occasional climbing of ramps, and stairs, but no \n ropes, ladders, or scaffolds, only occasional bal‐\n ancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and \n crawling. Frequent, but not constant handling \n and fingering bilaterally. This individual would \n need to avoid concentrated exposure to breath‐\n ing irritants, such as fumes, orders, dust, and \n gasses, as well as wet, slippery surfaces, and \n unprotected heights and would further be \n limited to only simply reaching, repetitive tasks, \n with few workplace changes, no team work, \n and no interactions with the public. \n \n\nThe expert determined such a person could work as a bench \nassembler, electronics worker, or production assembler. In \nthe second hypothetical, the ALJ asked about an individual \nwith the same limitations as in the first hypothetical, but who \nalso “due to impair‐related symptoms, such as the need to lay \ndown during the day to relieve pain would be off task 20% of \nthe work day.” The VE replied that such an individual could \nnot sustain employment. Finally, the ALJ asked about a per‐\nson with all the same limitations as provided in the first hy‐\npothetical, “but due to the frequency of bad days versus good \ndays, this individual would have two unscheduled absences \n\fNo. 18‐2228 7\n\nper month.” Again, the VE answered, “there would be no \njobs.” \n \n\n The ALJ conducted the Administration’s 5‐step analysis, \nsee 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), § 416.920(a), and found Winsted \nnot disabled. At Step 1 the ALJ determined Winsted had not \nengaged in substantial gainful activity since October 22, 2010. \nAt Step 2 the ALJ identified Winsted’s severe impairments as \ndegenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, bilateral carpal \ntunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis in his left knee, bilateral \ncavus foot, COPD, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, an affec‐\ntive disorder, and an anxiety disorder. At Step 3 the ALJ \nacknowledged Winsted had moderate difficulty with social \nfunctioning and concentration, persistence, and pace because \nof his mental‐health issues, but concluded these severe \nimpairments did not meet a listing for presumptive disability. \nBetween Steps 3 and 4 the ALJ determined Winsted had the \nrequisite RFC to perform light work with certain limitations \n(as provided in the first hypothetical, and including being \nlimited to “simple, routine, repetitive tasks with few work‐\nplace changes, no team work, and no interaction with the pub‐\nlic”) but his limitations precluded him from performing his \npast relevant work (Step 4). At Step 5 the ALJ concluded, \nbased on Winsted’s age, education, work experience, and \nRFC, that he was capable of successfully changing to other \nwork. \n \n\n Winsted appealed to the agency’s Appeals Council, which \ndenied review. He then sought judicial review, and the par‐\nties agreed to have a magistrate judge adjudicate this case. \nSee 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). That judge upheld the ALJ’s decision. \n\f8 No. 18‐2228 \n\n II. Analysis \n \n\n A. ALJ’s Evaluation of Winsted’s Limitations in Concen‐\n tration, Persistence, and Pace \n \n\n Winsted argues neither the ALJ’s RFC nor his first hypo‐\nthetical question properly accounted for the finding that he \nhas “moderate” difficulties with concentration, persistence, \nand pace. He submits the ALJ’s proposed limitations—that \nWinsted perform only “simple, routine, repetitive tasks with \nfew workplace changes”—fail to address his concentra‐\ntion‐functioning deficits because “both the hypothetical \nposed to the VE and the ALJ’s RFC assessment must incorpo‐\nrate all of the claimant’s limitations supported by the medical \nrecord.” Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 2015). \n \n\n Winsted’s argument here is correct. Again and again, we \nhave said that when an ALJ finds there are documented \nlimitations of concentration, persistence, and pace, the hypo‐\nthetical question presented to the VE must account for these \nlimitations. Moreno v. Berryhill, 882 F.3d 722, 730 (7th Cir. \n2018); Varga, 794 F.3d at 814‐15; OʹConnor‐Spinner v. Astrue, \n627 F.3d 614, 620 (7th Cir. 2010); Stewart v. Astrue, 561 F.3d \n679, 684 (7th Cir. 2009); Kasarsky v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 539, 544 \n(7th Cir. 2003); see also Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1003 \n(7th Cir. 2004). We have also made clear that in most cases \n“employing terms like ‘simple, repetitive tasks on their own \nwill not necessarily exclude from the VE’s consideration those \npositions that present significant problems of concentration, \npersistence and pace,” and thus, alone, are insufficient to pre‐\nsent the claimant’s limitations in this area. OʹConnor‐Spinner, \n627 F.3d at 620; see Moreno, 882 F.3d at 730. Here, at Step 3 the \nALJ found Winsted’s moderate difficulties with \n\fNo. 18‐2228 9\n\nconcentration, persistence, and pace could cause problems \nwith concentration and following written instructions, as well \nas stress with changes in his routine. And Winsted’s psychia‐\ntrist and therapist both remarked that stress caused Winsted \nto “become overwhelmed” and his depression impaired his \noverall functioning. \n \n\n But the first hypothetical the ALJ posed to the VE did not \ndirect the expert to consider problems with concentration, \npersistence, and pace, which is the hypothetical the ALJ relied \non for the RFC. Though particular words need not be \nincanted, we cannot look at the absence of the phrase “moder‐\nate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and pace” and \nfeel confident this limitation was properly incorporated in the \nRFC and in the hypothetical question. See OʹConnor‐Spinner, \n627 F.3d at 619. The ALJ may have thought, as the agency \nproposes, he was addressing Winsted’s concentration diffi‐\nculties by including limitations that would minimize social \ninteraction. But that restriction could just have likely been \nmeant to account for Winsted’s moderate difficulty with \nsocial functioning—the ALJ acknowledged Winsted experi‐\nences anxiety, panic attacks, and irritability when he is around \npeople. Nothing in the hypothetical question and the RFC, \nhowever, accounted for the ALJ’s discussion of how \nWinsted’s low GAF scores reflect serious mental‐health \nsymptoms or his mention that Winsted often “appeared tense, \nanxious, and/or restless” without interacting with other people. \nAdditionally, where a claimant’s limitations are stress‐\nrelated, as Winsted’s appear to be, the hypothetical question \nshould account for the level of stress a claimant can handle. \nSee Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816, 820, 823 (7th Cir. 2007); \nJohansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283, 285, 288–89 (7th Cir. 2002). \n\f10 No. 18‐2228 \n\nBut there was no restriction related to stress in the RFC or \nhypothetical question. \n \n\n Notably, it appears the ALJ disregarded testimony from \nthe VE about a person with limitations in concentration, per‐\nsistence, and pace. The ALJ asked two additional hypothetical \nquestions of the VE about an individual who would either be \noff task 20% of the workday or would have two unscheduled \nabsences per month—presumably assuming someone with \n“moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and \npace.” The VE responded that neither individual could \nsustain employment. But these responses are not reflected in \nthe ALJ’s decision, which means it cannot stand. \n \n\n B. ALJ’s Evaluation of the Medical Opinion Evidence \n \n\n Winsted also challenges the evidentiary weight the ALJ \ngave to four medical opinions, two from treating medical \nprofessionals (Dr. Gopala and Ms. Nevill) and two from state \nagency doctors (examining psychologist Dr. Marlow and \nconsultative examiner Dr. Siderys). \n \n\n Before reaching the merits of this argument, we must \naddress the agency’s contention that Winsted waived it. The \nagency is not correct on this; Winsted never “knowingly and \nintelligently relinquished” his claim, Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. \n463, 470 n.4 (2012). That he developed the argument poorly \nmeans at most he forfeited it. Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, \n254 (7th Cir. 2016). \n \n\n Forfeited or not, this argument fails. In the decision, the \nALJ adequately articulated why he gave each opinion the \nweight he did, entitling his decision, in this respect, to our \ndeference. See Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413, 416 (7th Cir. \n\fNo. 18‐2228 11\n\n2008). Starting with Dr. Gopala, the ALJ appropriately ques‐\ntioned the doctor’s conclusion—that Winsted had a painful \nrange of motion that made him incapable of engaging in \n“low‐stress” work—in light of other record evidence. This \nincluded Dr. Gopala’s own notes, which showed Winsted \nregularly had a full range of motion, no gross sensory or \nmotor deficits, fine motor skills within normal limits, and \nlungs that “have often been clear.” And though treating phy‐\nsician’s opinions, like Dr. Gopala’s, are usually entitled to \ncontrolling weight, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96‐2p,2 \nan ALJ may discredit the opinion if it is inconsistent with the \nrecord. See Loveless v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir. 2016); \nCampbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010); 20 C.F.R. \n§ 404.1527(c)(2). \n \n\n Next, Winsted argues the ALJ erred in giving little eviden‐\ntiary weight to Ms. Nevill’s mental RFC assessment. But the \nALJ wrote he discounted her report because she was a \nnon‐medical professional, and thus not an “acceptable medi‐\ncal source” See 20 CFR § 404.1513(a), § 416.913(a). Also, her \nfindings were “based solely on [Winsted’s] subjective \ncomplaints”—an appropriate reason for an ALJ to discount \nan opinion, see Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. \n2008). Additionally, he found Ms. Nevill’s report, like Dr. Go‐\npala’s, was inconsistent with Winsted’s medical‐health record \nas a whole. See Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2012) \n(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)‐(3)). \n \n\n\n\n \n2 The treating‐physician rule, which was eliminated for claims filed after \n\nMarch 27, 2017, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (2017), still applies to Winsted’s \nearlier filed claim, see Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018); \n20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. \n\f12 No. 18‐2228 \n\n Finally, Winsted claims the ALJ gave short shrift to the \ntwo state examiners’ 2013 opinions, asserting the ALJ erred in \ndiscussing the state psychologist’s evaluation “in one \nsentence” and the state physician’s opinion in a footnote. But \nas the agency points out, the ALJ discussed these opinions \nthroughout the decision. The ALJ cited the state psycholo‐\ngist’s findings when discussing Winsted’s mental‐health \ndiagnosis, and referred repeatedly to the state physician’s \nopinion throughout his discussion of Winsted’s gait, grip \nstrength, and scattered wheezing. The court applies a \ncommon‐sense reading to the entirety of an ALJ’s decision. \nRice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363, 369 (7th Cir. 2004); Shramek \nv. Apfel, 226 F.3d 809, 811 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, the ALJ ade‐\nquately articulated his reasons for discounting these two \nopinions—both reports were based on only one evaluation \nand largely reflected Winsted’s subjective reporting. See Elder, \n529 F.3d at 416; Rice, 384 F.3d at 371 (ALJs should rely on \nmedical opinions “based on objective observations,” not \n“subjective complaints.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(i) (ALJs \nshould consider “frequency of examination” in weight it \nassigns opinion). \n \n\n III. Conclusion \n \n\n Because the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the vocational \nexaminer and the residual function capacity did not capture \none of Winsted’s most significant problems—his concentra‐\ntion‐functioning deficits—we conclude further proceedings \nare necessary on that issue only. Therefore, we REVERSE the \ndistrict court judgment and REMAND this case to the Social \nSecurity Administration.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Ronnie L. Winsted, Jr. v. Nancy A. Berryhill\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 18‐2228 \\nRONNIE L. WINSTED, JR., \\n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \\n v. \\n\\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL, \\nActing Commissioner of Social Security, \\n Defendant‐Appellee. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court \\n for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. \\n No. 2:17‐cv‐00137‐MJD‐WTL — Mark J. Dinsmore, Magistrate Judge. \\n\\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 24, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before MANION, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. \\n BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Ronnie Winsted applied for disa‐\\nbility insurance benefits and supplemental security income \\nclaiming disability based on numerous conditions, including \\ndegenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, and anxiety. An \\nadministrative law judge denied benefits, finding that Win‐\\nsted could work with certain limitations. After the district \\n\\f2 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\ncourt upheld this denial, Winsted appealed, arguing the ALJ \\ndid not consider his difficulties with concentration, persis‐\\ntence, and pace. We agree—the ALJ did not adequately \\nexplain how the limitations he placed on Winsted’s residual \\nfunctional capacity accounted for the claimant’s mental diffi‐\\nculties, so we remand to the agency. \\n I. Background \\n Winsted was 42 years old when he applied for benefits, \\nasserting an onset date of October 2010. Although he initially \\nalleged he became disabled in 2005, two prior applications \\nalleging this onset date were denied and deemed administra‐\\ntively final. \\n \\n\\n Winsted suffers from multiple physical impairments, \\nmostly associated with his previous work in hard labor as an \\nindustrial truck driver, a highway maintenance worker, and \\nan operating engineer. MRIs taken in 2010 and 2011 showed \\nhe had focal, isolated degenerative disc disease. Other tests \\nrevealed osteoarthritis, mild carpal tunnel syndrome in his \\nhands, and cavus (high‐arched) foot that he treats with special \\nshoes. \\n \\n\\n Winsted complained of shortness of breath in May 2011 \\nand was diagnosed with acute bronchitis and chronic obstruc‐\\ntive pulmonary disease (“COPD”). Although he wheezed at \\ntimes, he often responded well to medication. Throughout the \\nrelevant period, Winsted sometimes complained of wheez‐\\ning, but often his lungs were clear. A pulmonary function test \\nin 2013, however, showed Winsted had moderate obstructive \\nlung disease and possibly restrictive lung disease. \\n \\n\\n Winsted began seeing an internist, Dr. Nedu Gopala, for \\nback pain in August 2013. The doctor prescribed medication \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 3\\n\\nfor Winsted’s breathing, chest pain, back pain, and anxiety. \\nAt appointments throughout 2013 and into March 2015, \\nWinsted’s range of motion in his arms and legs alternated \\nfrom full, to limited. He maintained a chronic cough, mild \\nshortness of breath, and wheezing, though a 2014 pulmonary \\nfunction test did not show any evidence of lung obstruction. \\n \\n\\n To address stress‐related heart issues, Winsted sought \\nmental‐health treatment in 2012. A therapist diagnosed him \\nwith a panic disorder, post‐traumatic stress disorder, and \\nmajor depressive disorder. Winsted had a guarded attitude, \\n“very little insight,” “below average” intellect, and was \\nassigned a Global Assessment of Function (“GAF”) of 51, \\nindicating he had moderate difficulty in social and occupa‐\\ntional functioning.1 AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, DIAGNOSTIC AND \\nSTATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS 32 (4th ed. 1994). \\nIn his therapy appointments, Winsted regularly complained \\nabout altercations with neighbors. \\n \\n\\n Later that year, Winsted sought treatment from a psychia‐\\ntrist, who diagnosed major depressive disorder and assigned \\na GAF of 45, indicating a serious impairment in social or \\noccupational functioning. AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, supra. The \\npsychiatrist reported that Winsted was tense, anxious, “very \\nrestless,” and moderately depressed. He prescribed medica‐\\ntion for anxiety and depression and continued to treat Win‐\\nsted. \\n \\n\\n \\n1 The GAF, which assesses an “individual’s overall level of functioning,” \\n\\nCraft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 676 n.7 (7th Cir. 2008), is no longer widely \\nused by psychiatrists and psychologists, but it was sometimes referred to \\nin social security disability hearings during Winsted’s proceedings. \\nSee Price v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 836, 839 (7th Cir. 2015). \\n\\f4 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n Between September 2013 and February 2015, Winsted’s \\nmental health fluctuated. In September 2013, Winsted’s \\npsychiatrist reported that his affect was appropriate, his \\nmood was not depressed, and “on the whole [he was] doing \\nbetter.” But two months later, Winsted’s affect was anxious, \\nhis mood was depressed, he was “feeling more irritable, \\nanxious, and restless,” and he suffered panic attacks. At a \\ntherapy session in July 2014, a therapist reported Winsted’s \\n“symptoms of depression and worry impair overall function‐\\ning,” and in August and November 2014, he was “mildly \\ndepressed.” But in February 2015, Winsted presented with an \\nappropriate affect and a not‐depressed mood. The same was \\ntrue in April 2015, though Winsted reported he sometimes felt \\n“tense and anxious” and stress continued to cause him to \\n“become overwhelmed.” \\n \\n\\n The disability application also triggered an examination in \\n2013 from an agency psychologist, Dr. Steven Marlow, who \\ndiagnosed Winsted with major depressive disorder, a gener‐\\nalized anxiety disorder, and a panic disorder. Specifically, he \\nreported Winsted “has a[n] avoidant, hostile, and easily \\ndistracted attitude.” Dr. Marlow determined Winsted had \\nbelow average levels of mental control, understanding and \\nmemory, and concentration; poor levels of persistence; and he \\ndid not do well in social situations. \\n \\n\\n A state‐agency physician, Dr. George Siderys, also exam‐\\nined Winsted in 2013 and opined he had a mild functional \\nimpairment. This included: “mild decrease in range of mo‐\\ntion,” pain that would be “expected to cause him problems \\nwith prolonged standing, walking, or heavy lifting,” and a \\nhistory of heart difficulties that would cause him to “wear out \\nif he participated in prolonged walking or lifting.” \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 5\\n\\n \\n\\n In connection with Winsted’s disability claim, treating \\nphysician Dr. Gopala completed a physical residual func‐\\ntional capacity (“RFC”) questionnaire in early 2015 and \\nreported Winsted suffered from hypertension, COPD, and \\nback pain, and described Winsted’s prognosis for back pain \\nas “poor.” He determined Winsted had a “painful range of \\nmovement” and was incapable of performing even “low \\nstress” work. Dr. Gopala also wrote that Winsted’s symptoms \\nwould affect his attention and concentration frequently; he \\ncould walk only about one block; and he could sit or stand for \\nonly 15 minutes at a time. \\n \\n\\n In April 2015, treating therapist Jessica Nevill filled out a \\nmental RFC questionnaire. She opined Winsted had marked \\nimpairments in his abilities to: relate to other people, respond \\nto supervision, respond to work pressures, and respond \\nappropriately to changes in the work setting. She wrote \\nWinsted would miss work three to four days per month \\nbecause of his impairments. \\n \\n\\n After the Social Security Administration denied Winsted’s \\napplication, he had a hearing before an ALJ. Winsted testified \\nhe used an inhaler twice a day, slept with a CPAP machine, \\nused a nebulizer for breathing every three months, and con‐\\ntinued to smoke a half‐a‐pack of cigarettes per day. He said \\nhe could not grip a two‐liter bottle with his left hand. Due to \\nthe pain in his knees and feet, he said he could stand for only \\na few minutes and, even then, he could not stand still. He also \\nsaid he could walk only a few blocks before needing to stop \\nand catch his breath, and experienced chest pain three to four \\ntimes per week. He noted he has trouble getting along with \\npeople and does not like to be around groups. \\n \\n\\f6 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n After Winsted testified, the ALJ asked the vocational \\nexpert (“VE”) three hypothetical questions. First, the ALJ \\nasked the VE to consider an individual of the same age, \\neducation, and work experience as Winsted. He continued: \\n \\n\\n This hypothetical individual would be capable \\n of light work, but four hours maximum stand‐\\n ing and walking in an eight hour day, only \\n occasional climbing of ramps, and stairs, but no \\n ropes, ladders, or scaffolds, only occasional bal‐\\n ancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and \\n crawling. Frequent, but not constant handling \\n and fingering bilaterally. This individual would \\n need to avoid concentrated exposure to breath‐\\n ing irritants, such as fumes, orders, dust, and \\n gasses, as well as wet, slippery surfaces, and \\n unprotected heights and would further be \\n limited to only simply reaching, repetitive tasks, \\n with few workplace changes, no team work, \\n and no interactions with the public. \\n \\n\\nThe expert determined such a person could work as a bench \\nassembler, electronics worker, or production assembler. In \\nthe second hypothetical, the ALJ asked about an individual \\nwith the same limitations as in the first hypothetical, but who \\nalso “due to impair‐related symptoms, such as the need to lay \\ndown during the day to relieve pain would be off task 20% of \\nthe work day.” The VE replied that such an individual could \\nnot sustain employment. Finally, the ALJ asked about a per‐\\nson with all the same limitations as provided in the first hy‐\\npothetical, “but due to the frequency of bad days versus good \\ndays, this individual would have two unscheduled absences \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 7\\n\\nper month.” Again, the VE answered, “there would be no \\njobs.” \\n \\n\\n The ALJ conducted the Administration’s 5‐step analysis, \\nsee 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), § 416.920(a), and found Winsted \\nnot disabled. At Step 1 the ALJ determined Winsted had not \\nengaged in substantial gainful activity since October 22, 2010. \\nAt Step 2 the ALJ identified Winsted’s severe impairments as \\ndegenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, bilateral carpal \\ntunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis in his left knee, bilateral \\ncavus foot, COPD, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, an affec‐\\ntive disorder, and an anxiety disorder. At Step 3 the ALJ \\nacknowledged Winsted had moderate difficulty with social \\nfunctioning and concentration, persistence, and pace because \\nof his mental‐health issues, but concluded these severe \\nimpairments did not meet a listing for presumptive disability. \\nBetween Steps 3 and 4 the ALJ determined Winsted had the \\nrequisite RFC to perform light work with certain limitations \\n(as provided in the first hypothetical, and including being \\nlimited to “simple, routine, repetitive tasks with few work‐\\nplace changes, no team work, and no interaction with the pub‐\\nlic”) but his limitations precluded him from performing his \\npast relevant work (Step 4). At Step 5 the ALJ concluded, \\nbased on Winsted’s age, education, work experience, and \\nRFC, that he was capable of successfully changing to other \\nwork. \\n \\n\\n Winsted appealed to the agency’s Appeals Council, which \\ndenied review. He then sought judicial review, and the par‐\\nties agreed to have a magistrate judge adjudicate this case. \\nSee 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). That judge upheld the ALJ’s decision. \\n\\f8 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n II. Analysis \\n \\n\\n A. ALJ’s Evaluation of Winsted’s Limitations in Concen‐\\n tration, Persistence, and Pace \\n \\n\\n Winsted argues neither the ALJ’s RFC nor his first hypo‐\\nthetical question properly accounted for the finding that he \\nhas “moderate” difficulties with concentration, persistence, \\nand pace. He submits the ALJ’s proposed limitations—that \\nWinsted perform only “simple, routine, repetitive tasks with \\nfew workplace changes”—fail to address his concentra‐\\ntion‐functioning deficits because “both the hypothetical \\nposed to the VE and the ALJ’s RFC assessment must incorpo‐\\nrate all of the claimant’s limitations supported by the medical \\nrecord.” Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 2015). \\n \\n\\n Winsted’s argument here is correct. Again and again, we \\nhave said that when an ALJ finds there are documented \\nlimitations of concentration, persistence, and pace, the hypo‐\\nthetical question presented to the VE must account for these \\nlimitations. Moreno v. Berryhill, 882 F.3d 722, 730 (7th Cir. \\n2018); Varga, 794 F.3d at 814‐15; OʹConnor‐Spinner v. Astrue, \\n627 F.3d 614, 620 (7th Cir. 2010); Stewart v. Astrue, 561 F.3d \\n679, 684 (7th Cir. 2009); Kasarsky v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 539, 544 \\n(7th Cir. 2003); see also Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1003 \\n(7th Cir. 2004). We have also made clear that in most cases \\n“employing terms like ‘simple, repetitive tasks on their own \\nwill not necessarily exclude from the VE’s consideration those \\npositions that present significant problems of concentration, \\npersistence and pace,” and thus, alone, are insufficient to pre‐\\nsent the claimant’s limitations in this area. OʹConnor‐Spinner, \\n627 F.3d at 620; see Moreno, 882 F.3d at 730. Here, at Step 3 the \\nALJ found Winsted’s moderate difficulties with \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 9\\n\\nconcentration, persistence, and pace could cause problems \\nwith concentration and following written instructions, as well \\nas stress with changes in his routine. And Winsted’s psychia‐\\ntrist and therapist both remarked that stress caused Winsted \\nto “become overwhelmed” and his depression impaired his \\noverall functioning. \\n \\n\\n But the first hypothetical the ALJ posed to the VE did not \\ndirect the expert to consider problems with concentration, \\npersistence, and pace, which is the hypothetical the ALJ relied \\non for the RFC. Though particular words need not be \\nincanted, we cannot look at the absence of the phrase “moder‐\\nate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and pace” and \\nfeel confident this limitation was properly incorporated in the \\nRFC and in the hypothetical question. See OʹConnor‐Spinner, \\n627 F.3d at 619. The ALJ may have thought, as the agency \\nproposes, he was addressing Winsted’s concentration diffi‐\\nculties by including limitations that would minimize social \\ninteraction. But that restriction could just have likely been \\nmeant to account for Winsted’s moderate difficulty with \\nsocial functioning—the ALJ acknowledged Winsted experi‐\\nences anxiety, panic attacks, and irritability when he is around \\npeople. Nothing in the hypothetical question and the RFC, \\nhowever, accounted for the ALJ’s discussion of how \\nWinsted’s low GAF scores reflect serious mental‐health \\nsymptoms or his mention that Winsted often “appeared tense, \\nanxious, and/or restless” without interacting with other people. \\nAdditionally, where a claimant’s limitations are stress‐\\nrelated, as Winsted’s appear to be, the hypothetical question \\nshould account for the level of stress a claimant can handle. \\nSee Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816, 820, 823 (7th Cir. 2007); \\nJohansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283, 285, 288–89 (7th Cir. 2002). \\n\\f10 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\nBut there was no restriction related to stress in the RFC or \\nhypothetical question. \\n \\n\\n Notably, it appears the ALJ disregarded testimony from \\nthe VE about a person with limitations in concentration, per‐\\nsistence, and pace. The ALJ asked two additional hypothetical \\nquestions of the VE about an individual who would either be \\noff task 20% of the workday or would have two unscheduled \\nabsences per month—presumably assuming someone with \\n“moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and \\npace.” The VE responded that neither individual could \\nsustain employment. But these responses are not reflected in \\nthe ALJ’s decision, which means it cannot stand. \\n \\n\\n B. ALJ’s Evaluation of the Medical Opinion Evidence \\n \\n\\n Winsted also challenges the evidentiary weight the ALJ \\ngave to four medical opinions, two from treating medical \\nprofessionals (Dr. Gopala and Ms. Nevill) and two from state \\nagency doctors (examining psychologist Dr. Marlow and \\nconsultative examiner Dr. Siderys). \\n \\n\\n Before reaching the merits of this argument, we must \\naddress the agency’s contention that Winsted waived it. The \\nagency is not correct on this; Winsted never “knowingly and \\nintelligently relinquished” his claim, Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. \\n463, 470 n.4 (2012). That he developed the argument poorly \\nmeans at most he forfeited it. Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, \\n254 (7th Cir. 2016). \\n \\n\\n Forfeited or not, this argument fails. In the decision, the \\nALJ adequately articulated why he gave each opinion the \\nweight he did, entitling his decision, in this respect, to our \\ndeference. See Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413, 416 (7th Cir. \\n\\fNo. 18‐2228 11\\n\\n2008). Starting with Dr. Gopala, the ALJ appropriately ques‐\\ntioned the doctor’s conclusion—that Winsted had a painful \\nrange of motion that made him incapable of engaging in \\n“low‐stress” work—in light of other record evidence. This \\nincluded Dr. Gopala’s own notes, which showed Winsted \\nregularly had a full range of motion, no gross sensory or \\nmotor deficits, fine motor skills within normal limits, and \\nlungs that “have often been clear.” And though treating phy‐\\nsician’s opinions, like Dr. Gopala’s, are usually entitled to \\ncontrolling weight, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96‐2p,2 \\nan ALJ may discredit the opinion if it is inconsistent with the \\nrecord. See Loveless v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir. 2016); \\nCampbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010); 20 C.F.R. \\n§ 404.1527(c)(2). \\n \\n\\n Next, Winsted argues the ALJ erred in giving little eviden‐\\ntiary weight to Ms. Nevill’s mental RFC assessment. But the \\nALJ wrote he discounted her report because she was a \\nnon‐medical professional, and thus not an “acceptable medi‐\\ncal source” See 20 CFR § 404.1513(a), § 416.913(a). Also, her \\nfindings were “based solely on [Winsted’s] subjective \\ncomplaints”—an appropriate reason for an ALJ to discount \\nan opinion, see Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. \\n2008). Additionally, he found Ms. Nevill’s report, like Dr. Go‐\\npala’s, was inconsistent with Winsted’s medical‐health record \\nas a whole. See Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2012) \\n(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)‐(3)). \\n \\n\\n\\n\\n \\n2 The treating‐physician rule, which was eliminated for claims filed after \\n\\nMarch 27, 2017, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (2017), still applies to Winsted’s \\nearlier filed claim, see Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018); \\n20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. \\n\\f12 No. 18‐2228 \\n\\n Finally, Winsted claims the ALJ gave short shrift to the \\ntwo state examiners’ 2013 opinions, asserting the ALJ erred in \\ndiscussing the state psychologist’s evaluation “in one \\nsentence” and the state physician’s opinion in a footnote. But \\nas the agency points out, the ALJ discussed these opinions \\nthroughout the decision. The ALJ cited the state psycholo‐\\ngist’s findings when discussing Winsted’s mental‐health \\ndiagnosis, and referred repeatedly to the state physician’s \\nopinion throughout his discussion of Winsted’s gait, grip \\nstrength, and scattered wheezing. The court applies a \\ncommon‐sense reading to the entirety of an ALJ’s decision. \\nRice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363, 369 (7th Cir. 2004); Shramek \\nv. Apfel, 226 F.3d 809, 811 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, the ALJ ade‐\\nquately articulated his reasons for discounting these two \\nopinions—both reports were based on only one evaluation \\nand largely reflected Winsted’s subjective reporting. See Elder, \\n529 F.3d at 416; Rice, 384 F.3d at 371 (ALJs should rely on \\nmedical opinions “based on objective observations,” not \\n“subjective complaints.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(i) (ALJs \\nshould consider “frequency of examination” in weight it \\nassigns opinion). \\n \\n\\n III. Conclusion \\n \\n\\n Because the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the vocational \\nexaminer and the residual function capacity did not capture \\none of Winsted’s most significant problems—his concentra‐\\ntion‐functioning deficits—we conclude further proceedings \\nare necessary on that issue only. Therefore, we REVERSE the \\ndistrict court judgment and REMAND this case to the Social \\nSecurity Administration.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":687,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589155,"string":"4,589,155"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Linda Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-1469"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"David Frank Hamilton\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐1469 \\nLINDA REED, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \\n v. \\n\\nCOLUMBIA ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL, \\n Defendant‐Appellee. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Eastern District of Wisconsin. \\n No. 14‐CV‐330 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff‐appellant Linda Reed al‐\\nleges that she suffered discrimination on the basis of her dis‐\\nabilities while she was a patient at defendant‐appellee Colum‐\\nbia St. Mary’s Hospital in March 2012. Among other things, \\nshe contends that the hospital failed to accommodate her dis‐\\nabilities by deliberately withholding from her a device she \\nused to speak and discriminated against her by putting her in \\n\\f2 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\na “seclusion” room to punish her. She brought claims under \\nTitle III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 \\nU.S.C. § 12181, which governs public accommodations of‐\\nfered by private entities, including hospitals, as well as Sec‐\\ntion 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Wis‐\\nconsin Mental Health Act, Wis. Stat. § 51.61. \\n The district court granted the hospital’s motion for sum‐\\nmary judgment, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice \\nand declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the \\nremaining state‐law claims. Reed v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hospi‐\\ntal, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1091 (E.D. Wis. 2017). The court held that \\nthe hospital did not need to comply with Title III of the ADA \\nbecause it fell within the Act’s exemption for entities con‐\\ntrolled by religious organizations. Id. at 1103–04, citing 42 \\nU.S.C. § 12187. The court also dismissed Reed’s Rehabilitation \\nAct claims, finding that the hospital’s alleged mistreatment of \\nReed was not premised solely on Reed’s disability. Id. at 1105–\\n08. \\n We reverse. The hospital raised its religious exemption af‐\\nfirmative defense to the ADA claims for the first time after \\ndiscovery, in its motion for summary judgment. We explain \\nbelow why we conclude it was an abuse of discretion to ex‐\\ncuse the hospital’s failure to raise this affirmative defense ear‐\\nlier. We also reverse the dismissal of Reed’s Rehabilitation Act \\nclaims on the merits because they depend on disputed facts. \\nI. Factual & Procedural Background \\n A. Reed’s Stay in the Hospital \\n Our statement of facts reflects our standard of review for \\na grant of summary judgment. We cannot vouch for the ob‐\\njective truth of every detail. We review the facts and draw all \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 3\\n\\ninferences from conflicting evidence in the light reasonably \\nmost favorable to Reed as the non‐moving party. Greengrass \\nv. International Monetary Systems Ltd., 776 F.3d 481, 485 (7th \\nCir. 2015). \\n Reed suffers from several disabilities, including tardive \\ndyskinesia (“TD”), bipolar disorder, and post‐traumatic stress \\ndisorder. TD is a neurological disorder that causes involun‐\\ntary facial and limb movements and makes speaking difficult. \\nReed has been prescribed a portable communication device \\ncalled a Dynavox that she can use to generate speech. \\n Reed entered the hospital’s emergency department on \\nMarch 8, 2012. She reported suicidal thoughts. She was admit‐\\nted to the inpatient behavioral health unit and left on March \\n12. Reed alleges that during her four‐day stay at the hospital \\nshe was discriminated against in multiple ways. She claims \\nthat she was denied the use of her Dynavox; that hospital staff \\nattempted to give her medication she was allergic to; that she \\nwas denied timely access to her medical records; that she was \\ndenied the use of a telephone to call her case manager (about \\nwhom the record reveals little); that she was denied access to \\na chaplain; and that she was physically escorted off the prem‐\\nises by two security guards. Notably, the hospital’s corporate \\nrepresentative and nursing supervisor, William Fry, testified \\nin his deposition that the Dynavox was locked up outside \\nReed’s room at night and that she had access to it during the \\nday only “as long as her behavior was appropriate.” \\n The most severe of Reed’s allegations is that on March 11, \\nhospital staff refused to give her the Dynavox and took her to \\na seclusion room, where she was dropped on a mattress on \\nthe floor and later attempted suicide. Reed and the hospital \\ngive differing accounts of what exactly took place during this \\n\\f4 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nincident. Reed claims that she asked for her Dynavox, that \\nhospital staff refused to give it to her, that her TD‐related \\nmovements caused her to spill coffee on herself and to fall to \\nthe ground, and that patient‐care assistant Andrew Miller \\ngrabbed her and put her in the seclusion room for about two \\nhours. Miller testified, on the other hand, that Reed was on \\nthe ground in a hallway crying and he told her she needed to \\nget out of the hallway. When he was walking her back to her \\nroom, he claims, she began to scream and he and nursing su‐\\npervisor Fry decided to take her to the seclusion room. On re‐\\nview of a grant of summary judgment for the defendant, of \\ncourse, we must accept the plaintiff’s version of events. Reed \\nwas discharged the day after this incident. According to Reed, \\nher Dynavox and other possessions were thrown into a cab, \\nand she was pushed into it by a security guard and sent off. \\n B. The District Court Proceedings \\n Reed filed her first complaint pro se in February 2014. The \\ndistrict court dismissed that case without prejudice. The next \\nmonth, Reed filed this new lawsuit, which the court construed \\nas raising claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. \\nThe district court dismissed again, holding that the dismissal \\nof the prior suit had preclusive effect and alternatively that \\nReed failed to state a claim. Reed appealed pro se. We vacated \\nand remanded because the first case had been dismissed with‐\\nout prejudice and thus did not preclude the second. Reed v. \\nColumbia St. Mary’s Hospital, 782 F.3d 331, 335–36 (7th Cir. \\n2015). We also held that Reed stated viable claims under the \\nADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 337. \\n On remand, the district court recruited counsel for Reed. \\nHer amended complaint asserted claims under the ADA for \\nintentional discrimination, denial of reasonable modification, \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 5\\n\\nand retaliation and intimidation; claims under the Rehabilita‐\\ntion Act for intentional discrimination and denial of reasona‐\\nble accommodation; and patients’‐rights claims under Wis‐\\nconsin state law. The hospital filed answers to both the origi‐\\nnal complaint and the amended complaint. Each answer as‐\\nserted several affirmative defenses. Neither answer men‐\\ntioned a religious exemption from the ADA. Discovery was \\nconducted from September 2015 to August 2016. In October \\n2016, the hospital moved for summary judgment, which the \\ndistrict court granted. \\nII. Analysis \\n This appeal presents one procedural issue and a cluster of \\nsubstantive issues. The procedural issue is whether the dis‐\\ntrict court abused its discretion in allowing the hospital to \\nraise for the first time on summary judgment the affirmative \\ndefense of the ADA’s Title III religious exemption. The sub‐\\nstantive issues concern the merits of the Rehabilitation Act \\nclaims. \\n A. The ADA Claims \\n 1. The Religious Exemption Defense Under ADA Title III \\n Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination by \\n“public accommodations,” including hospitals. See 42 U.S.C. \\n§ 12181(7). Title III provides: “No individual shall be discrim‐\\ninated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal \\nenjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, ad‐\\nvantages, or accommodations of any place of public accom‐\\nmodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). It is unlawful to “fail[] to take \\nsuch steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual \\nwith a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or \\notherwise treated differently than other individuals because \\n\\f6 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nof the absence of auxiliary aids and services,” unless the de‐\\nfendant can show that such accommodation “would funda‐\\nmentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privi‐\\nlege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would \\nresult in an undue burden.” § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). A physical \\nor mental impairment that “substantially limits one or more \\nmajor life activities,” including “speaking,” qualifies as a dis‐\\nability under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act (dis‐\\ncussed below). See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), (2)(A); 29 U.S.C. \\n§ 705(20)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(j)(2)(ii); 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(ii). \\n Title III of the ADA applies generally to hospitals, but Title \\nIII exempts from its requirements “religious organizations” \\nand “entities controlled by religious organizations, including \\nplaces of worship.” 42 U.S.C. § 12187. This exemption is an \\naffirmative defense. A defendant invoking it must plead it in \\nthe answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c); Castro v. Chicago Housing \\nAuthority, 360 F.3d 721, 735 (7th Cir. 2004). Rule 8(c) applies to \\n“any avoidance or affirmative defense,” and lists a number of \\nparticular defenses that must be pleaded. The religious ex‐\\nemption in Title III of the ADA is an affirmative defense be‐\\ncause it assumes the plaintiff can prove everything she must \\nto establish her claim but may still act to defeat her claim.1 \\n It makes sense for the defendant claiming the Title III reli‐\\ngious exemption to bear the burden of pleading and proving \\nits religious control. We have said that a defense not listed in \\nRule 8(c) is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded if the \\n \\n 1 “An affirmative defense is one that admits the allegations in the com‐\\n\\nplaint, but avoids liability, in whole or in part, by new allegations of ex‐\\ncuse, justification or other negating matters.” Divine v. Volunteers of Amer‐\\nica of Illinois, 319 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1003 (N.D. Ill. 2018), quoting Riemer v. \\nChase Bank USA, N.A., 274 F.R.D. 637, 639 (N.D. Ill. 2011). \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 7\\n\\ndefendant bears the burden of proof on the issue under state \\nlaw or if the defense does not controvert the plaintiff’s proof. \\nWinforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856, 872 (7th \\nCir. 2012). The religious exemption defense does not contro‐\\nvert the plaintiff’s proof. It also draws on facts ordinarily \\nwithin the knowledge and control of the defendant. See Gomez \\nv. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640–41 (1980) (qualified immunity is \\naffirmative defense under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; relevant facts are \\npeculiarly within knowledge and control of defendant); \\nWright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1271. An \\nADA plaintiff should not need to spend the money to antici‐\\npate this defense without fair and timely notice that the de‐\\nfendant intends to rely upon it. \\n 2. Consequences of Failure to Plead a Defense \\n A defendant’s failure to plead an affirmative defense may \\nresult in a waiver of the defense if the defendant has relin‐\\nquished it knowingly and intelligently, or forfeiture if the de‐\\nfendant merely failed to preserve the defense by pleading it. \\nSee Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 470 & n.4 (2012). Some of \\nour opinions use the terms waiver and forfeiture interchange‐\\nably, but Wood shows that we need to pay attention to the dif‐\\nference. Whether courts apply waiver or forfeiture in re‐\\nsponse to a failure to plead, the purpose of the pleading re‐\\nquirement for an affirmative defense “is to avoid surprise and \\nundue prejudice to the plaintiff by providing her notice and \\nthe opportunity to demonstrate why the defense should not \\nprevail.” Venters v. City of Delphi, 123 F.3d 956, 967 (7th Cir. \\n1997). \\n We have explained, however, that “the rule that forfeits an \\naffirmative defense not pleaded in the answer (or by an earlier \\nmotion) is, we want to make clear, not to be applied rigidly.” \\n\\f8 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nGarofalo v. Village of Hazel Crest, 754 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. \\n2014), citing Matthews v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., Inc., 642 F.3d \\n565, 570 (7th Cir. 2011). We will generally find that the failure \\nto plead an affirmative defense in the answer works a forfei‐\\nture “only if the plaintiff is harmed by the defendant’s delay \\nin asserting it.” Id. There are limits, though, and in exercising \\ntheir discretion in such matters, district courts must be alert \\nto the real and practical harms that can result from failures to \\nplead. We have explained that \\n the district court has the discretion to allow an \\n answer to be amended to assert an affirmative \\n defense not raised at the outset. The pertinence \\n of a particular defense may only become appar‐\\n ent after discovery, for example, in which case it \\n would be reasonable for the court to permit the \\n belated assertion of that defense. Nonetheless, \\n the defendant remains obligated to act in timely \\n fashion. Once the availability of an affirmative \\n defense is reasonably apparent, the defendant \\n must alert the parties and the court to his intent \\n to pursue that defense. A defendant should not \\n be permitted to “lie behind a log” and ambush \\n a plaintiff with an unexpected defense. The ap‐\\n propriate thing for the defendant to do, of \\n course, is to promptly seek the court’s leave to \\n amend his answer. His failure to do [so] risks a \\n finding that he has waived the defense. \\nVenters, 123 F.3d at 967–68 (internal citations and quotation \\nmarks omitted). \\n Pleadings shape the litigation, including the scope and \\ncost of discovery. Based on the claims and defenses raised in \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 9\\n\\nthe pleadings, the parties can discover information that is rel‐\\nevant, not privileged, and proportional to the needs of the \\ncase. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Many efficiencies are lost when \\nclaims or defenses are left out of pleadings and a party then \\nattempts to assert them at later stages. At the same time, it is \\nnot unusual for parties to discover new theories for claims or \\ndefenses in the course of discovery. Timely motions to amend \\npleadings for such newly discovered theories are appropriate \\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). \\n We see these problems more often when plaintiffs try to \\nraise new theories or claims for the first time in opposing sum‐\\nmary judgment. The concerns about unfair surprise and prej‐\\nudice with unpleaded affirmative defenses are similar: \\n When a new argument is made in summary \\n judgment briefing, the correct first step is to con‐\\n sider whether it changes the complaint’s factual \\n theory, or just the legal theories [the] plaintiff \\n has pursued so far. In the former situation, the \\n plaintiff may be attempting in effect to amend \\n its complaint, and the district court has discre‐\\n tion to deny the de facto amendment and to re‐\\n fuse to consider the new factual claims. In the \\n latter, the court should consider the conse‐\\n quences of allowing the plaintiff’s new theory. \\n If it would, for example, cause unreasonable de‐\\n lay, or make it more costly or difficult to defend \\n the suit, the district court can and should hold \\n the plaintiff to his original theory. \\nBRC Rubber & Plastics, Inc. v. Cont’l Carbon Co., 900 F.3d 529, \\n540 (7th Cir. 2018) (citations and internal quotation marks \\n\\f10 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nomitted), quoting Chessie Logistics Co. v. Krinos Holdings, Inc., \\n867 F.3d 852, 860 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n We routinely enforce this stricture against plaintiffs who \\nwait until summary‐judgment briefing to raise a new claim, \\ndespite the absence of an express pleading requirement, since \\ncomplaints need not identify legal theories. See, e.g., Anderson \\nv. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989, 997 (7th Cir. 2012) (pro se plaintiff); \\nWhitaker v. Milwaukee County, 772 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2014); \\nTrade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., 573 F.3d 401, 412 (7th \\nCir. 2009); Conner v. Illinois Dep’t of Natural Resources, 413 F.3d \\n675, 679–80 (7th Cir. 2005); Griffin v. Potter, 356 F.3d 824, 830 \\n(7th Cir. 2004); Grayson v. O’Neill, 308 F.3d 808, 817 (7th Cir. \\n2002); Whitaker v. T.J. Snow Co., 151 F.3d 661, 663–64 (7th Cir. \\n1998); Auston v. Schubnell, 116 F.3d 251, 255 (7th Cir. 1997); \\nShanahan v. City of Chicago, 82 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir. 1996); \\nKostovetsky v. Ambit Energy Holdings, LLC, 242 F. Supp. 3d 708, \\n718–19 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (reviewing Seventh Circuit case law). \\nIn much the same way, late assertions of affirmative de‐\\nfenses—like the religious exemption to Title III of the ADA—\\nmake litigation more costly and difficult and can make it un‐\\nfairly difficult for a plaintiff to pursue her claims. \\n 3. The District Court’s Ruling \\n The district court held that the hospital did not waive or \\nforfeit its religious exemption affirmative defense. The court \\nacknowledged that the hospital raised the defense for the first \\ntime in its motion for summary judgment but explained that \\nsince this defense is not expressly listed in Federal Rule of \\nCivil Procedure 8(c), “it is not clear that failure to assert it in \\nthe answer waives it.” 236 F. Supp. 3d at 1101. That rationale \\nwill not hold water here. Precedent offers sufficiently clear \\nguidance on when defenses not enumerated in Rule 8(c) must \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 11\\n\\nbe pleaded. See, e.g., Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640–41 \\n(1980); Winforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856, \\n872 (7th Cir. 2012); Sundstrand Corp. v. Standard Kollsman In‐\\ndustries, Inc., 488 F.2d 807, 813 (7th Cir. 1973); Brunswick Leas‐\\ning Corp. v. Wisconsin Cent., Ltd., 136 F.3d 521, 530 (7th Cir. \\n1998). The statutory exemption here is based on facts in a de‐\\nfendant’s control and clearly falls within the category of af‐\\nfirmative defenses. \\n The district court also held that Reed was not prejudiced \\nby the hospital’s delay in asserting this defense. For support, \\nthe court relied on an exchange during the deposition of nurs‐\\ning supervisor William Fry in February 2016, six months be‐\\nfore the close of discovery, to find that Reed knew “for a sub‐\\nstantial period that the religious exemption defense was a \\npossibility.” Reed, 236 F. Supp. 3d at 1101. We respectfully dis‐\\nagree. Here is the entire discussion from Fry’s deposition: \\n Q And so who – what is your understanding of \\n the ownership of Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital \\n Milwaukee? \\n MR. FOLEY: Object to form and foundation. \\n THE WITNESS: I don’t really know the answer \\n to that. I don’t really understand – I don’t know \\n the answer to that. \\n BY MS. BARNES: Who owns the organization? \\n MR. FOLEY: Object to form and foundation. \\n THE WITNESS: I’ll try to answer that. Ascen‐\\n sion Healthcare is our parent sponsor of this \\n ministry. \\n\\f12 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\n BY MS. BARNES: What does that mean, spon‐\\n sor? \\n MR. FOLEY: Object to form. \\n THE WITNESS: Ascension Healthcare has mul‐\\n tiple hospitals in multiple states across the \\n country. That is, again, our – as far as I under‐\\n stand it, our parent ownership structure. \\n BY MS. BARNES: Okay. And is Ascension a re‐\\n ligious organization? \\n A Yes. \\n Q What type of religious organization? \\n A It’s a mission of the Roman Catholic Church. \\n Q A mission? \\n A Um‐hum. \\n Q So is it – is it – \\n A A ministry, I should have said. I ministry of \\n the Roman Catholic Church. \\n Q So is it – does it follow the principles of the \\n Catholic church, when you say “ministry”? \\n MR. FOLEY: I’ll object to form and foundation. \\n I think this is far afield of – \\n THE WITNESS: Yeah, this is beyond my \\n knowledge and expertise. \\n MR. FOLEY: – his knowledge. But if you can an‐\\n swer, go ahead. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 13\\n\\n THE WITNESS: As far as I know, yes. I guess I \\n don’t really understand the question. \\n BY MS. BARNES: What does it mean to be a \\n ministry, I guess? I’m trying to understand it as \\n well. \\n A Well, we’re a not for profit in the ministry of \\n providing healthcare. \\nFry Dep. at 13–15. \\n This brief exchange was with a witness who obviously did \\nnot understand the issue or identify the exemption, let alone \\ntry to assert the exemption. It is not comparable to a lawyer’s \\nstatement that the party intends to assert a defense. The ex‐\\nchange did not put Reed on fair notice that the hospital would \\nbe asserting the religious exemption and that she needed to \\nspend the time and money to conduct full‐bore discovery on \\nwhether the hospital could satisfy the ADA’s religious ex‐\\nemption. \\n The district court also thought that Reed knew when she \\nfiled suit that the hospital was at least nominally associated \\nwith the Catholic faith. Nominal association told plaintiff and \\ntells us nothing about the availability of the religious exemp‐\\ntion. The statutory test is “control.” 42 U.S.C. § 12187. Count‐\\nless entities have names that are associated with religions but \\nare not subject to religious control. \\n Finally, the district court noted that Reed’s response to the \\nhospital’s motion for summary judgment showed that she \\nhad studied the hospital’s corporate structure and governing \\ndocuments (or at least those submitted by the hospital). We \\n\\f14 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nhave a limited record before us on this issue.2 The structure \\nappears to be as follows: the hospital’s sole corporate member \\nis Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. In turn, Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. \\nis “sponsored by” its two corporate members: Ascension \\nHealth (a Catholic national health system) and Columbia \\nHealth System, Inc. (a non‐sectarian community health sys‐\\ntem). Ascension Health is a subsidiary of Ascension Health \\nAlliance, which is a subsidiary of Ascension Health Minis‐\\ntries. The Congregation of Consecrated Life and Societies of \\nApostolic Life of the Vatican conferred public juridic person‐\\nality on Ascension Health Ministries in June 2011. Ascension \\nHealth Ministries’ governing documents state that it shall be \\ngoverned in accordance with canon law. Thus, the hospital is \\nsubject to two lines of control: (1) a Catholic one (Ascension \\nHealth Ministries —> Ascension Health Alliance —> Ascen‐\\nsion Health —> Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. —> the hospital); \\nand (2) a non‐sectarian one (Columbia Health System —> Co‐\\nlumbia St. Mary’s Inc. —> the hospital). \\n The hospital’s bylaws reflect these two lines of control: \\nthey say that the hospital “shall be and remain a Catholic fa‐\\ncility or institution” but also that the hospital will “respect the \\nnonsectarian traditions and values of Columbia Health Sys‐\\ntem.” Similarly reflecting these two lines of control but revers‐\\ning the emphasis, the bylaws of Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. (the \\nhospital’s sole corporate member) say that it “shall not be a \\nCatholic facility or institution” but that it will not perform \\n\\n \\n 2 The record is limited since this defense was sprung on Reed in the \\n\\nmotion for summary judgment. Most of the relevant evidence comes from \\nthe documents the hospital chose to submit. Even those documents show \\na complicated corporate legal structure and an ambiguous relationship \\nwith the hospital’s Catholic affiliates. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 15\\n\\nmedical procedures inconsistent with Catholic ethical direc‐\\ntives. Columbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s bylaws reserve certain pow‐\\ners to both Ascension Health and Columbia Health System.3 \\nColumbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s officers and board members “serve \\nex officio” as the hospital’s officers and board members. Im‐\\nportant for the issue of control, the board members are recom‐\\nmended by Columbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s existing board for ap‐\\npointment by Ascension Health and are intended to “be \\nbroadly representative of the communities served.” Relying \\non this corporate structure as disclosed by the hospital in its \\nsummary judgment materials, the district court determined \\nthat the hospital was sufficiently controlled by the Catholic \\nChurch as to fall within Title III’s religious exemption and to \\nmake it immune to Reed’s ADA claims. \\n 4. Abuse of Discretion \\n We express no opinion on whether, after full discovery \\nand fair litigation of the issue on a more complete record, the \\nhospital might fit within the exemption for entities controlled \\nby religious organizations. Instead, we find that the district \\ncourt abused its discretion by considering this affirmative de‐\\nfense at all. \\n Several factors point in this direction. First, the defendant \\nhospital has offered no excuse or explanation for failing to \\nplead the defense in it answers or for raising the defense so \\nlate. Without a credible excuse for the delay, the hospital’s late \\ninvocation of the defense looks like a straight ambush of the \\nplaintiff when it was too late for her to put together a \\n \\n 3 We are told that these dual lines of control are also detailed in the \\n\\nterms of an Affiliation Agreement, but that document has not been pro‐\\nduced to Reed or included in the record. \\n\\f16 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\ncomprehensive rebuttal. Second, the religious‐exemption de‐\\nfense should not ordinarily depend on discovery from the \\nplaintiff, as will often be the case with other affirmative de‐\\nfenses such as statutes of limitations, estoppels, waivers, and \\nothers. Instead, the religious‐exemption defense will ordinar‐\\nily depend on facts within the knowledge and control of the \\ndefendant itself. Third, the defendant did not deploy this de‐\\nfense until after discovery had closed, meaning both parties \\nhad already invested a good deal of time and money in the \\ncase on the legitimate expectation that they knew what the is‐\\nsues were. Allowing a last‐minute defense that introduces \\nsuch new factual and legal issues after discovery has closed \\nraises the costs of litigation and allows the party that was at \\nleast negligent in failing to plead its defense to take unfair ad‐\\nvantage of its opposing party. Fourth, the district court’s ra‐\\ntionale for allowing the defense to be raised so late simply \\ndoes not withstand scrutiny. In this case, a few facts relevant \\nto this potential affirmative defense came up briefly in one \\ndeposition. As we explained above, that cannot be reasonably \\ntreated as fair notice that the hospital would actually assert \\nthe defense and that the plaintiff would need to spend the \\ntime and money needed to meet that defense. The plaintiff \\nwas entitled to rely on Rule 8(c) and the hospital’s silence in \\nits pleadings. \\n The situation here is similar to that in Venters v. City of Del‐\\nphi, where we concluded that the defendants waived their \\nstatute of limitations affirmative defense. 123 F.3d 956, 967–69 \\n(7th Cir. 1997). There, the defendants failed to include the de‐\\nfense in their answers to the original and amended com‐\\nplaints. We could “discern no justification for the delay” when \\nthey asserted the defense for the first time in their reply mem‐\\norandum in support of their motion for summary judgment. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 17\\n\\nId. at 968. While a difference here is that Reed was at least \\ngiven notice of the defense in the motion for summary judg‐\\nment itself and could attempt to respond, she was still at a \\nserious disadvantage. That notice came after the parties had \\ncompleted discovery. As in Venters, we “cannot overlook the \\nfailure to comply with Rule 8(c) in this context. Intentionally \\nor not, [plaintiff] was bushwacked.” Id. at 969. Put simply, “it \\nwas not [plaintiff’s] obligation to raise the defense, and if Rule \\n8(c) is not to become a nullity, we must not countenance at‐\\ntempts to invoke such defenses at the eleventh hour, without \\nexcuse and without adequate notice to the plaintiff.” Id.4 \\n Finally, the prejudice to Reed from the delayed assertion \\nof the defense is especially acute here because the relevant law \\nand facts simply are not clear. The ADA does not define what \\nit means to be considered a “religious organization” or to be \\n“controlled by a religious organization.” See 42 U.S.C. § \\n12187. To our knowledge, no federal appellate court has yet \\nconstrued this religious exemption. Several district courts \\nhave—including the veteran judge who decided this case. \\nSee Rose v. Cahee, 727 F. Supp. 2d 728, 747 (E.D. Wis. 2010).5 \\n\\n \\n 4 In contrast, we held that a district court did not abuse its discretion \\n\\nin Robinson v. Sappington when it allowed the defendants to amend their \\npleadings at summary judgment to add affirmative defenses. 351 F.3d 317, \\n332–33 (7th Cir. 2003). There, the record showed that the plaintiff had suf‐\\nficient notice that the defendants might pursue the defenses because de‐\\nfense counsel had explored them in detail during discovery. Id. Further, \\nthe plaintiff did not suggest she was prejudiced in any way by the late \\namendment. Id. \\n 5 In Rose, the court applied the religious exemption where a Roman \\n\\nCatholic institute sponsored a healthcare corporation and occupied a pri‐\\nmary role in the corporation’s corporate governance structure, the insti‐\\ntute members made up the entirety of one class of corporate membership, \\n\\f18 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nThese district court decisions show that the issue can be com‐\\nplex, both factually and legally. These decisions have cited \\nand relied on the following Department of Justice interpreta‐\\ntion of the religious exemption: \\n The ADA’s exemption of religious organiza‐\\n tions and religious entities controlled by reli‐\\n gious organizations is very broad, encompass‐\\n ing a wide variety of situations. Religious or‐\\n ganizations and entities controlled by religious \\n organizations have no obligations under the \\n ADA. Even when a religious organization car‐\\n ries out activities that would otherwise make it \\n a public accommodation, the religious organi‐\\n zation is exempt from ADA coverage. Thus, if a \\n church itself operates a day care center, a \\n\\n \\nand the institute’s class members had the sole authority to amend or re‐\\npeal the corporation’s articles of incorporation and bylaws. 727 F. Supp. \\n2d at 747. As for the other district court cases applying the exemption, \\nReed correctly points out that in none was the defense raised late, and in \\nall there was greater evidence of religious control. See Cole v. Saint Francis \\nMedical Ctr., No. 1:15‐CV‐98(ACL), 2016 WL 7474988, at *4‐6 (E.D. Mo. \\nDec. 29, 2016) (exemption was “properly raised by Defendant as an affirm‐\\native defense” and hospital was “under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of \\nthe Roman Catholic Dioceses[.]”); Marshall v. Sisters of the Holy Family of \\nNazareth, 399 F. Supp. 2d 597, 606 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (school “solely operated \\nand controlled by” order of nuns); White v. Denver Seminary, 157 F. Supp. \\n2d 1171, 1173–74 (D. Colo. 2001) (seminary was founded by Baptist asso‐\\nciation and employees were required to be active Christians). By contrast, \\nin Sloan v. Community Christian Day School, LLC, a Christian school was \\nfound to not be exempt since the school was not owned, affiliated with, or \\nfinancially supported by any recognized religious group and was instead \\nowned by two individuals who were not ministers. No. 3–15–0551, 2015 \\nWL 10437824, at * 3, (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 11, 2015). \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 19\\n\\n nursing home, a private school, or a diocesan \\n school system, the operations of the center, \\n home, school, or schools would not be subject to \\n the requirements of the ADA or this part. The \\n religious entity would not lose its exemption \\n merely because the services provided were \\n open to the general public. The test is whether \\n the church or other religious organization oper‐\\n ates the public accommodation, not which indi‐\\n viduals receive the public accommodationʹs ser‐\\n vices. \\n Religious entities that are controlled by reli‐\\n gious organizations are also exempt from the \\n ADA’s requirements. Many religious organiza‐\\n tions in the United States use lay boards and \\n other secular or corporate mechanisms to oper‐\\n ate schools and an array of social services. The \\n use of a lay board or other mechanism does not \\n itself remove the ADA’s religious exemption. \\n Thus, a parochial school, having religious doc‐\\n trine in its curriculum and sponsored by a reli‐\\n gious order, could be exempt either as a reli‐\\n gious organization or as an entity controlled by \\n a religious organization, even if it has a lay \\n board. The test remains a factual one – whether the \\n church or other religious organization controls the \\n operations of the school or of the service or whether \\n the school or service is itself a religious organization. \\n28 C.F.R. ch. 1., pt. 36, App’x C (emphasis added). \\n For this appeal, the critical points are that the law govern‐\\ning the hospital’s affirmative defense is still highly contestable \\n\\f20 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nand its application may well depend on a host of facts that \\nwould need to be explored in some depth. Before summary \\njudgment briefing, plaintiff Reed had no notice that she \\nneeded to prepare to meet the defense. \\n We have considered the possibility of a response less dras‐\\ntic than treating the hospital’s religious‐exemption defense as \\nforfeited. One possibility would be to allow the parties to pur‐\\nsue further discovery on that issue and to have the hospital \\npay for plaintiff’s reasonable costs and attorney fees for that \\nprocess. In this case, however, the hospital has offered no \\ncredible excuse for its delay, and the normal rule is forfeiture \\nof unpleaded defenses. The remedy of reopening discovery \\nwould also impose additional delay on Reed. We see no miti‐\\ngating factors here that would favor anything other than en‐\\nforcement of Rule 8(c) as written and treating the defense as \\nforfeited. We therefore reverse summary judgment for the \\nhospital on the ADA claims. \\n B. Rehabilitation Act Claims \\n 1. Legal Standard \\n We now turn to the merits of Reed’s Rehabilitation Act \\nclaims. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides: “No \\notherwise qualified individual with a disability … shall, \\nsolely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the \\nparticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to \\ndiscrimination under any program or activity receiving Fed‐\\neral financial assistance[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Four elements \\nmust be satisfied to establish a violation of Section 504: (1) the \\nplaintiff must be a handicapped individual as defined by the \\nAct; (2) the plaintiff must be “otherwise qualified” for partic‐\\nipation in the program; (3) the program must receive federal \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 21\\n\\nfinancial assistance; and (4) the plaintiff must have been “de‐\\nnied the benefits of the program solely because of his handi‐\\ncap.” See Mallet v. Wisconsin Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation, \\n130 F.3d 1245, 1257 (7th Cir. 1997). The hospital contests only \\nthis fourth element of sole cause. The ADA and the Rehabili‐\\ntation Act are otherwise very similar, but the Rehabilitation \\nAct prohibits discrimination only if it is “solely by reason of” \\na person’s disability. The ADA permits mixed‐motive claims. \\nSee Whitaker v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Health Servs., 849 F.3d 681, \\n684 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n A plaintiff suing under the Rehabilitation Act can assert \\nthat she was intentionally discriminated against or that the \\ndefendant failed to afford her a reasonable accommodation \\nfor her disability. The Rehabilitation Act does not contain an \\nexplicit accommodation requirement, but the Supreme Court \\nhas located a duty to accommodate in the statute generally. \\nWe have written that in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 \\n(1985), \\n the Court explained that “‘a refusal to modify \\n an existing program might become unreasona‐\\n ble and discriminatory.’” Id. at 300 (quoting \\n Southeastern Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, \\n 413 (1979)). The Rehabilitation Act’s promise of \\n “meaningful access” to state benefits, according \\n to the Court, means that “reasonable accommo‐\\n dations in the grantee’s program or benefit may \\n have to be made.” Id. at 301. \\nWisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 465 \\nF.3d 737, 747 (7th Cir. 2006). We explained further: \\n\\f22 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\n Following Choate, several courts of appeals have \\n adopted the view that the Rehabilitation Act re‐\\n quires public entities to modify federally as‐\\n sisted programs if such a modification is neces‐\\n sary to ensure that the disabled have equal ac‐\\n cess to the benefits of that program. See, e.g., \\n Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 274–75 \\n (2d Cir. 2003). These circuits, including ours, \\n also follow the corollary principle implicit in the \\n Choate decision that the Rehabilitation Act helps \\n disabled individuals obtain access to benefits \\n only when they would have difficulty obtaining \\n those benefits “by reason of” their disabilities, \\n and not because of some quality that they share \\n generally with the public. \\nId. at 748. \\n 2. Analysis of the Rehabilitation Act Claims \\n We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary \\njudgment on the merits. Whitaker, 849 F.3d at 684. Summary \\njudgment is proper when the moving party shows that there \\nis no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is en‐\\ntitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). \\n We reverse the dismissal of Reed’s intentional discrimina‐\\ntion claim, which is based only on the seclusion‐room inci‐\\ndent. The district court determined that the undisputed facts \\nshow that the “seclusion incident” was motivated at least in \\npart by factors other than Reed’s disability. The court stated \\nthat Reed “admits that she spilled her coffee and thereafter \\nfell to the floor screaming. She further concedes that Miller \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 23\\n\\ntold her that she could not remain on the floor in the middle \\nof the hallway. (Docket # 55 ¶ 43).” Reed, 236 F. Supp. at 1106. \\n The district court either misconstrued or exaggerated \\nReed’s concessions. Reed has not conceded any of the reasons \\nMiller cited for taking her to the seclusion room. The district \\ncourt did not include a record citation for its assertion that \\nReed admitted she fell to the floor “screaming.” We have not \\nseen such an admission in the record. Reed admits that she \\nspilled coffee and was on the floor of the hallway. She specif‐\\nically denies she was screaming. See Dkt. 55, ¶¶ 38–45, citing \\nReed Affidavit, Ex. A, Dkt. 55‐26. According to the district \\ncourt, this disturbance at least partially motivated the hospital \\nstaff to put her in seclusion. \\n The undisputed facts show that Reed spilled coffee on her‐\\nself and was on the floor of the hallway. We agree with the \\ndistrict court that Miller was responding to this situation (and \\nnot solely to Reed’s disabilities) when he picked her up off the \\nfloor. So far, so good. But Miller himself testified that, at that \\npoint, he started to take Reed back to her own room (not the \\nseclusion room). It was only during the walk to her room that, \\nbecause of her screaming, the decision was made to take her \\nto the seclusion room. Thus, a jury could find that nothing \\nReed has conceded (spilling coffee and lying on the floor) led \\nMiller to take her to the seclusion room. Spilling the coffee \\nand lying on the floor prompted Miller only to take Reed back \\nto her own room. It was the action that Reed specifically de‐\\nnies (screaming during the walk) that Miller says led him and \\nFry to take Reed to the seclusion room. Reed has not conceded \\nthat she did anything disruptive during the walk to her room, \\nwhen hospital staff decided to take her to the seclusion room. \\nThe material facts that led to her being placed in seclusion are \\n\\f24 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\ndisputed. Crediting Reed’s version of the event, a reasonable \\njury could find that the hospital intentionally discriminated \\nagainst Reed solely on the basis of her disability.6 \\n We also reverse the dismissal of Reed’s reasonable accom‐\\nmodation claim. This claim is based on all of the allegations \\nReed asserts in her complaint (seclusion‐room incident; with‐\\nholding Dynavox; security escort off the premises; and denial \\nof requests to use telephone, to see a chaplain, and to see med‐\\nical records). While medical professionals certainly are enti‐\\ntled to discretion in managing their patients, the hospital has \\nnot argued that it withheld the Dynavox in the exercise of pro‐\\nfessional judgment to treat Reed’s mental illness. Withhold‐\\ning the Dynavox in particular may support a viable failure‐to‐\\n\\n \\n 6 The parties have not addressed another issue that may arise on re‐\\n\\nmand. The Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act do \\nnot create a remedy for medical malpractice. See Grzan v. Charter Hosp., \\n104 F.3d 116, 122–23 (7th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds as stated \\nin Amundson v. Wisc. Dep’t of Health Svcs., 721 F.3d 871, 874 (7th Cir. 2013); \\nBryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996) (prisoner’s claim); ac‐\\ncord, e.g., McGugan v. Aldana‐Bernier, 752 F.3d 224, 231–32 (2d Cir. 2014); \\nBurger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882, 883 (8th Cir. 2005); Schiavo ex rel. Schindler \\nv. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2005); Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corp. \\nof America, 403 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005). As the Second Circuit ex‐\\nplained in McGugan, the term “discrimination” can have a benign (and \\nperfectly lawful) sense, in which a health care provider makes a discrimi‐\\nnating professional judgment about the type of treatment to provide to a \\npatient, but can also have a pejorative sense that describes actions taken \\nbased on irrelevant criteria under the influence of irrational bias. See 752 \\nF.3d at 231–32, comparing United States v. University Hosp., 729 F.2d 144, \\n156 (2d Cir. 1984), and Green v. City of New York, 465 F.3d 65, 78 (2d Cir. \\n2006). In this appeal, the hospital has not argued that it withheld Reed’s \\nDynavox from her as a benign form of discrimination, i.e., as an exercise \\nof medical judgment for her appropriate treatment. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 25\\n\\naccommodate claim under the Rehabilitation Act, subject to \\nthe considerations discussed above in note 6. \\n The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of \\nthe hospital is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for \\nproceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, Circuit \\nRule 36 shall apply.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4366408/\", \"author_raw\": \"David Frank Hamilton\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589155/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Linda Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐1469 \nLINDA REED, \n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \n v. \n\nCOLUMBIA ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL, \n Defendant‐Appellee. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Eastern District of Wisconsin. \n No. 14‐CV‐330 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit \nJudges. \n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff‐appellant Linda Reed al‐\nleges that she suffered discrimination on the basis of her dis‐\nabilities while she was a patient at defendant‐appellee Colum‐\nbia St. Mary’s Hospital in March 2012. Among other things, \nshe contends that the hospital failed to accommodate her dis‐\nabilities by deliberately withholding from her a device she \nused to speak and discriminated against her by putting her in \n\f2 No. 17‐1469 \n\na “seclusion” room to punish her. She brought claims under \nTitle III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 \nU.S.C. § 12181, which governs public accommodations of‐\nfered by private entities, including hospitals, as well as Sec‐\ntion 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Wis‐\nconsin Mental Health Act, Wis. Stat. § 51.61. \n The district court granted the hospital’s motion for sum‐\nmary judgment, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice \nand declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the \nremaining state‐law claims. Reed v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hospi‐\ntal, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1091 (E.D. Wis. 2017). The court held that \nthe hospital did not need to comply with Title III of the ADA \nbecause it fell within the Act’s exemption for entities con‐\ntrolled by religious organizations. Id. at 1103–04, citing 42 \nU.S.C. § 12187. The court also dismissed Reed’s Rehabilitation \nAct claims, finding that the hospital’s alleged mistreatment of \nReed was not premised solely on Reed’s disability. Id. at 1105–\n08. \n We reverse. The hospital raised its religious exemption af‐\nfirmative defense to the ADA claims for the first time after \ndiscovery, in its motion for summary judgment. We explain \nbelow why we conclude it was an abuse of discretion to ex‐\ncuse the hospital’s failure to raise this affirmative defense ear‐\nlier. We also reverse the dismissal of Reed’s Rehabilitation Act \nclaims on the merits because they depend on disputed facts. \nI. Factual & Procedural Background \n A. Reed’s Stay in the Hospital \n Our statement of facts reflects our standard of review for \na grant of summary judgment. We cannot vouch for the ob‐\njective truth of every detail. We review the facts and draw all \n\fNo. 17‐1469 3\n\ninferences from conflicting evidence in the light reasonably \nmost favorable to Reed as the non‐moving party. Greengrass \nv. International Monetary Systems Ltd., 776 F.3d 481, 485 (7th \nCir. 2015). \n Reed suffers from several disabilities, including tardive \ndyskinesia (“TD”), bipolar disorder, and post‐traumatic stress \ndisorder. TD is a neurological disorder that causes involun‐\ntary facial and limb movements and makes speaking difficult. \nReed has been prescribed a portable communication device \ncalled a Dynavox that she can use to generate speech. \n Reed entered the hospital’s emergency department on \nMarch 8, 2012. She reported suicidal thoughts. She was admit‐\nted to the inpatient behavioral health unit and left on March \n12. Reed alleges that during her four‐day stay at the hospital \nshe was discriminated against in multiple ways. She claims \nthat she was denied the use of her Dynavox; that hospital staff \nattempted to give her medication she was allergic to; that she \nwas denied timely access to her medical records; that she was \ndenied the use of a telephone to call her case manager (about \nwhom the record reveals little); that she was denied access to \na chaplain; and that she was physically escorted off the prem‐\nises by two security guards. Notably, the hospital’s corporate \nrepresentative and nursing supervisor, William Fry, testified \nin his deposition that the Dynavox was locked up outside \nReed’s room at night and that she had access to it during the \nday only “as long as her behavior was appropriate.” \n The most severe of Reed’s allegations is that on March 11, \nhospital staff refused to give her the Dynavox and took her to \na seclusion room, where she was dropped on a mattress on \nthe floor and later attempted suicide. Reed and the hospital \ngive differing accounts of what exactly took place during this \n\f4 No. 17‐1469 \n\nincident. Reed claims that she asked for her Dynavox, that \nhospital staff refused to give it to her, that her TD‐related \nmovements caused her to spill coffee on herself and to fall to \nthe ground, and that patient‐care assistant Andrew Miller \ngrabbed her and put her in the seclusion room for about two \nhours. Miller testified, on the other hand, that Reed was on \nthe ground in a hallway crying and he told her she needed to \nget out of the hallway. When he was walking her back to her \nroom, he claims, she began to scream and he and nursing su‐\npervisor Fry decided to take her to the seclusion room. On re‐\nview of a grant of summary judgment for the defendant, of \ncourse, we must accept the plaintiff’s version of events. Reed \nwas discharged the day after this incident. According to Reed, \nher Dynavox and other possessions were thrown into a cab, \nand she was pushed into it by a security guard and sent off. \n B. The District Court Proceedings \n Reed filed her first complaint pro se in February 2014. The \ndistrict court dismissed that case without prejudice. The next \nmonth, Reed filed this new lawsuit, which the court construed \nas raising claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. \nThe district court dismissed again, holding that the dismissal \nof the prior suit had preclusive effect and alternatively that \nReed failed to state a claim. Reed appealed pro se. We vacated \nand remanded because the first case had been dismissed with‐\nout prejudice and thus did not preclude the second. Reed v. \nColumbia St. Mary’s Hospital, 782 F.3d 331, 335–36 (7th Cir. \n2015). We also held that Reed stated viable claims under the \nADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 337. \n On remand, the district court recruited counsel for Reed. \nHer amended complaint asserted claims under the ADA for \nintentional discrimination, denial of reasonable modification, \n\fNo. 17‐1469 5\n\nand retaliation and intimidation; claims under the Rehabilita‐\ntion Act for intentional discrimination and denial of reasona‐\nble accommodation; and patients’‐rights claims under Wis‐\nconsin state law. The hospital filed answers to both the origi‐\nnal complaint and the amended complaint. Each answer as‐\nserted several affirmative defenses. Neither answer men‐\ntioned a religious exemption from the ADA. Discovery was \nconducted from September 2015 to August 2016. In October \n2016, the hospital moved for summary judgment, which the \ndistrict court granted. \nII. Analysis \n This appeal presents one procedural issue and a cluster of \nsubstantive issues. The procedural issue is whether the dis‐\ntrict court abused its discretion in allowing the hospital to \nraise for the first time on summary judgment the affirmative \ndefense of the ADA’s Title III religious exemption. The sub‐\nstantive issues concern the merits of the Rehabilitation Act \nclaims. \n A. The ADA Claims \n 1. The Religious Exemption Defense Under ADA Title III \n Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination by \n“public accommodations,” including hospitals. See 42 U.S.C. \n§ 12181(7). Title III provides: “No individual shall be discrim‐\ninated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal \nenjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, ad‐\nvantages, or accommodations of any place of public accom‐\nmodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). It is unlawful to “fail[] to take \nsuch steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual \nwith a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or \notherwise treated differently than other individuals because \n\f6 No. 17‐1469 \n\nof the absence of auxiliary aids and services,” unless the de‐\nfendant can show that such accommodation “would funda‐\nmentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privi‐\nlege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would \nresult in an undue burden.” § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). A physical \nor mental impairment that “substantially limits one or more \nmajor life activities,” including “speaking,” qualifies as a dis‐\nability under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act (dis‐\ncussed below). See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), (2)(A); 29 U.S.C. \n§ 705(20)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(j)(2)(ii); 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(ii). \n Title III of the ADA applies generally to hospitals, but Title \nIII exempts from its requirements “religious organizations” \nand “entities controlled by religious organizations, including \nplaces of worship.” 42 U.S.C. § 12187. This exemption is an \naffirmative defense. A defendant invoking it must plead it in \nthe answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c); Castro v. Chicago Housing \nAuthority, 360 F.3d 721, 735 (7th Cir. 2004). Rule 8(c) applies to \n“any avoidance or affirmative defense,” and lists a number of \nparticular defenses that must be pleaded. The religious ex‐\nemption in Title III of the ADA is an affirmative defense be‐\ncause it assumes the plaintiff can prove everything she must \nto establish her claim but may still act to defeat her claim.1 \n It makes sense for the defendant claiming the Title III reli‐\ngious exemption to bear the burden of pleading and proving \nits religious control. We have said that a defense not listed in \nRule 8(c) is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded if the \n \n 1 “An affirmative defense is one that admits the allegations in the com‐\n\nplaint, but avoids liability, in whole or in part, by new allegations of ex‐\ncuse, justification or other negating matters.” Divine v. Volunteers of Amer‐\nica of Illinois, 319 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1003 (N.D. Ill. 2018), quoting Riemer v. \nChase Bank USA, N.A., 274 F.R.D. 637, 639 (N.D. Ill. 2011). \n\fNo. 17‐1469 7\n\ndefendant bears the burden of proof on the issue under state \nlaw or if the defense does not controvert the plaintiff’s proof. \nWinforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856, 872 (7th \nCir. 2012). The religious exemption defense does not contro‐\nvert the plaintiff’s proof. It also draws on facts ordinarily \nwithin the knowledge and control of the defendant. See Gomez \nv. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640–41 (1980) (qualified immunity is \naffirmative defense under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; relevant facts are \npeculiarly within knowledge and control of defendant); \nWright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1271. An \nADA plaintiff should not need to spend the money to antici‐\npate this defense without fair and timely notice that the de‐\nfendant intends to rely upon it. \n 2. Consequences of Failure to Plead a Defense \n A defendant’s failure to plead an affirmative defense may \nresult in a waiver of the defense if the defendant has relin‐\nquished it knowingly and intelligently, or forfeiture if the de‐\nfendant merely failed to preserve the defense by pleading it. \nSee Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 470 & n.4 (2012). Some of \nour opinions use the terms waiver and forfeiture interchange‐\nably, but Wood shows that we need to pay attention to the dif‐\nference. Whether courts apply waiver or forfeiture in re‐\nsponse to a failure to plead, the purpose of the pleading re‐\nquirement for an affirmative defense “is to avoid surprise and \nundue prejudice to the plaintiff by providing her notice and \nthe opportunity to demonstrate why the defense should not \nprevail.” Venters v. City of Delphi, 123 F.3d 956, 967 (7th Cir. \n1997). \n We have explained, however, that “the rule that forfeits an \naffirmative defense not pleaded in the answer (or by an earlier \nmotion) is, we want to make clear, not to be applied rigidly.” \n\f8 No. 17‐1469 \n\nGarofalo v. Village of Hazel Crest, 754 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. \n2014), citing Matthews v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., Inc., 642 F.3d \n565, 570 (7th Cir. 2011). We will generally find that the failure \nto plead an affirmative defense in the answer works a forfei‐\nture “only if the plaintiff is harmed by the defendant’s delay \nin asserting it.” Id. There are limits, though, and in exercising \ntheir discretion in such matters, district courts must be alert \nto the real and practical harms that can result from failures to \nplead. We have explained that \n the district court has the discretion to allow an \n answer to be amended to assert an affirmative \n defense not raised at the outset. The pertinence \n of a particular defense may only become appar‐\n ent after discovery, for example, in which case it \n would be reasonable for the court to permit the \n belated assertion of that defense. Nonetheless, \n the defendant remains obligated to act in timely \n fashion. Once the availability of an affirmative \n defense is reasonably apparent, the defendant \n must alert the parties and the court to his intent \n to pursue that defense. A defendant should not \n be permitted to “lie behind a log” and ambush \n a plaintiff with an unexpected defense. The ap‐\n propriate thing for the defendant to do, of \n course, is to promptly seek the court’s leave to \n amend his answer. His failure to do [so] risks a \n finding that he has waived the defense. \nVenters, 123 F.3d at 967–68 (internal citations and quotation \nmarks omitted). \n Pleadings shape the litigation, including the scope and \ncost of discovery. Based on the claims and defenses raised in \n\fNo. 17‐1469 9\n\nthe pleadings, the parties can discover information that is rel‐\nevant, not privileged, and proportional to the needs of the \ncase. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Many efficiencies are lost when \nclaims or defenses are left out of pleadings and a party then \nattempts to assert them at later stages. At the same time, it is \nnot unusual for parties to discover new theories for claims or \ndefenses in the course of discovery. Timely motions to amend \npleadings for such newly discovered theories are appropriate \nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). \n We see these problems more often when plaintiffs try to \nraise new theories or claims for the first time in opposing sum‐\nmary judgment. The concerns about unfair surprise and prej‐\nudice with unpleaded affirmative defenses are similar: \n When a new argument is made in summary \n judgment briefing, the correct first step is to con‐\n sider whether it changes the complaint’s factual \n theory, or just the legal theories [the] plaintiff \n has pursued so far. In the former situation, the \n plaintiff may be attempting in effect to amend \n its complaint, and the district court has discre‐\n tion to deny the de facto amendment and to re‐\n fuse to consider the new factual claims. In the \n latter, the court should consider the conse‐\n quences of allowing the plaintiff’s new theory. \n If it would, for example, cause unreasonable de‐\n lay, or make it more costly or difficult to defend \n the suit, the district court can and should hold \n the plaintiff to his original theory. \nBRC Rubber & Plastics, Inc. v. Cont’l Carbon Co., 900 F.3d 529, \n540 (7th Cir. 2018) (citations and internal quotation marks \n\f10 No. 17‐1469 \n\nomitted), quoting Chessie Logistics Co. v. Krinos Holdings, Inc., \n867 F.3d 852, 860 (7th Cir. 2017). \n We routinely enforce this stricture against plaintiffs who \nwait until summary‐judgment briefing to raise a new claim, \ndespite the absence of an express pleading requirement, since \ncomplaints need not identify legal theories. See, e.g., Anderson \nv. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989, 997 (7th Cir. 2012) (pro se plaintiff); \nWhitaker v. Milwaukee County, 772 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2014); \nTrade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., 573 F.3d 401, 412 (7th \nCir. 2009); Conner v. Illinois Dep’t of Natural Resources, 413 F.3d \n675, 679–80 (7th Cir. 2005); Griffin v. Potter, 356 F.3d 824, 830 \n(7th Cir. 2004); Grayson v. O’Neill, 308 F.3d 808, 817 (7th Cir. \n2002); Whitaker v. T.J. Snow Co., 151 F.3d 661, 663–64 (7th Cir. \n1998); Auston v. Schubnell, 116 F.3d 251, 255 (7th Cir. 1997); \nShanahan v. City of Chicago, 82 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir. 1996); \nKostovetsky v. Ambit Energy Holdings, LLC, 242 F. Supp. 3d 708, \n718–19 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (reviewing Seventh Circuit case law). \nIn much the same way, late assertions of affirmative de‐\nfenses—like the religious exemption to Title III of the ADA—\nmake litigation more costly and difficult and can make it un‐\nfairly difficult for a plaintiff to pursue her claims. \n 3. The District Court’s Ruling \n The district court held that the hospital did not waive or \nforfeit its religious exemption affirmative defense. The court \nacknowledged that the hospital raised the defense for the first \ntime in its motion for summary judgment but explained that \nsince this defense is not expressly listed in Federal Rule of \nCivil Procedure 8(c), “it is not clear that failure to assert it in \nthe answer waives it.” 236 F. Supp. 3d at 1101. That rationale \nwill not hold water here. Precedent offers sufficiently clear \nguidance on when defenses not enumerated in Rule 8(c) must \n\fNo. 17‐1469 11\n\nbe pleaded. See, e.g., Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640–41 \n(1980); Winforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856, \n872 (7th Cir. 2012); Sundstrand Corp. v. Standard Kollsman In‐\ndustries, Inc., 488 F.2d 807, 813 (7th Cir. 1973); Brunswick Leas‐\ning Corp. v. Wisconsin Cent., Ltd., 136 F.3d 521, 530 (7th Cir. \n1998). The statutory exemption here is based on facts in a de‐\nfendant’s control and clearly falls within the category of af‐\nfirmative defenses. \n The district court also held that Reed was not prejudiced \nby the hospital’s delay in asserting this defense. For support, \nthe court relied on an exchange during the deposition of nurs‐\ning supervisor William Fry in February 2016, six months be‐\nfore the close of discovery, to find that Reed knew “for a sub‐\nstantial period that the religious exemption defense was a \npossibility.” Reed, 236 F. Supp. 3d at 1101. We respectfully dis‐\nagree. Here is the entire discussion from Fry’s deposition: \n Q And so who – what is your understanding of \n the ownership of Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital \n Milwaukee? \n MR. FOLEY: Object to form and foundation. \n THE WITNESS: I don’t really know the answer \n to that. I don’t really understand – I don’t know \n the answer to that. \n BY MS. BARNES: Who owns the organization? \n MR. FOLEY: Object to form and foundation. \n THE WITNESS: I’ll try to answer that. Ascen‐\n sion Healthcare is our parent sponsor of this \n ministry. \n\f12 No. 17‐1469 \n\n BY MS. BARNES: What does that mean, spon‐\n sor? \n MR. FOLEY: Object to form. \n THE WITNESS: Ascension Healthcare has mul‐\n tiple hospitals in multiple states across the \n country. That is, again, our – as far as I under‐\n stand it, our parent ownership structure. \n BY MS. BARNES: Okay. And is Ascension a re‐\n ligious organization? \n A Yes. \n Q What type of religious organization? \n A It’s a mission of the Roman Catholic Church. \n Q A mission? \n A Um‐hum. \n Q So is it – is it – \n A A ministry, I should have said. I ministry of \n the Roman Catholic Church. \n Q So is it – does it follow the principles of the \n Catholic church, when you say “ministry”? \n MR. FOLEY: I’ll object to form and foundation. \n I think this is far afield of – \n THE WITNESS: Yeah, this is beyond my \n knowledge and expertise. \n MR. FOLEY: – his knowledge. But if you can an‐\n swer, go ahead. \n\fNo. 17‐1469 13\n\n THE WITNESS: As far as I know, yes. I guess I \n don’t really understand the question. \n BY MS. BARNES: What does it mean to be a \n ministry, I guess? I’m trying to understand it as \n well. \n A Well, we’re a not for profit in the ministry of \n providing healthcare. \nFry Dep. at 13–15. \n This brief exchange was with a witness who obviously did \nnot understand the issue or identify the exemption, let alone \ntry to assert the exemption. It is not comparable to a lawyer’s \nstatement that the party intends to assert a defense. The ex‐\nchange did not put Reed on fair notice that the hospital would \nbe asserting the religious exemption and that she needed to \nspend the time and money to conduct full‐bore discovery on \nwhether the hospital could satisfy the ADA’s religious ex‐\nemption. \n The district court also thought that Reed knew when she \nfiled suit that the hospital was at least nominally associated \nwith the Catholic faith. Nominal association told plaintiff and \ntells us nothing about the availability of the religious exemp‐\ntion. The statutory test is “control.” 42 U.S.C. § 12187. Count‐\nless entities have names that are associated with religions but \nare not subject to religious control. \n Finally, the district court noted that Reed’s response to the \nhospital’s motion for summary judgment showed that she \nhad studied the hospital’s corporate structure and governing \ndocuments (or at least those submitted by the hospital). We \n\f14 No. 17‐1469 \n\nhave a limited record before us on this issue.2 The structure \nappears to be as follows: the hospital’s sole corporate member \nis Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. In turn, Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. \nis “sponsored by” its two corporate members: Ascension \nHealth (a Catholic national health system) and Columbia \nHealth System, Inc. (a non‐sectarian community health sys‐\ntem). Ascension Health is a subsidiary of Ascension Health \nAlliance, which is a subsidiary of Ascension Health Minis‐\ntries. The Congregation of Consecrated Life and Societies of \nApostolic Life of the Vatican conferred public juridic person‐\nality on Ascension Health Ministries in June 2011. Ascension \nHealth Ministries’ governing documents state that it shall be \ngoverned in accordance with canon law. Thus, the hospital is \nsubject to two lines of control: (1) a Catholic one (Ascension \nHealth Ministries —> Ascension Health Alliance —> Ascen‐\nsion Health —> Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. —> the hospital); \nand (2) a non‐sectarian one (Columbia Health System —> Co‐\nlumbia St. Mary’s Inc. —> the hospital). \n The hospital’s bylaws reflect these two lines of control: \nthey say that the hospital “shall be and remain a Catholic fa‐\ncility or institution” but also that the hospital will “respect the \nnonsectarian traditions and values of Columbia Health Sys‐\ntem.” Similarly reflecting these two lines of control but revers‐\ning the emphasis, the bylaws of Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. (the \nhospital’s sole corporate member) say that it “shall not be a \nCatholic facility or institution” but that it will not perform \n\n \n 2 The record is limited since this defense was sprung on Reed in the \n\nmotion for summary judgment. Most of the relevant evidence comes from \nthe documents the hospital chose to submit. Even those documents show \na complicated corporate legal structure and an ambiguous relationship \nwith the hospital’s Catholic affiliates. \n\fNo. 17‐1469 15\n\nmedical procedures inconsistent with Catholic ethical direc‐\ntives. Columbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s bylaws reserve certain pow‐\ners to both Ascension Health and Columbia Health System.3 \nColumbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s officers and board members “serve \nex officio” as the hospital’s officers and board members. Im‐\nportant for the issue of control, the board members are recom‐\nmended by Columbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s existing board for ap‐\npointment by Ascension Health and are intended to “be \nbroadly representative of the communities served.” Relying \non this corporate structure as disclosed by the hospital in its \nsummary judgment materials, the district court determined \nthat the hospital was sufficiently controlled by the Catholic \nChurch as to fall within Title III’s religious exemption and to \nmake it immune to Reed’s ADA claims. \n 4. Abuse of Discretion \n We express no opinion on whether, after full discovery \nand fair litigation of the issue on a more complete record, the \nhospital might fit within the exemption for entities controlled \nby religious organizations. Instead, we find that the district \ncourt abused its discretion by considering this affirmative de‐\nfense at all. \n Several factors point in this direction. First, the defendant \nhospital has offered no excuse or explanation for failing to \nplead the defense in it answers or for raising the defense so \nlate. Without a credible excuse for the delay, the hospital’s late \ninvocation of the defense looks like a straight ambush of the \nplaintiff when it was too late for her to put together a \n \n 3 We are told that these dual lines of control are also detailed in the \n\nterms of an Affiliation Agreement, but that document has not been pro‐\nduced to Reed or included in the record. \n\f16 No. 17‐1469 \n\ncomprehensive rebuttal. Second, the religious‐exemption de‐\nfense should not ordinarily depend on discovery from the \nplaintiff, as will often be the case with other affirmative de‐\nfenses such as statutes of limitations, estoppels, waivers, and \nothers. Instead, the religious‐exemption defense will ordinar‐\nily depend on facts within the knowledge and control of the \ndefendant itself. Third, the defendant did not deploy this de‐\nfense until after discovery had closed, meaning both parties \nhad already invested a good deal of time and money in the \ncase on the legitimate expectation that they knew what the is‐\nsues were. Allowing a last‐minute defense that introduces \nsuch new factual and legal issues after discovery has closed \nraises the costs of litigation and allows the party that was at \nleast negligent in failing to plead its defense to take unfair ad‐\nvantage of its opposing party. Fourth, the district court’s ra‐\ntionale for allowing the defense to be raised so late simply \ndoes not withstand scrutiny. In this case, a few facts relevant \nto this potential affirmative defense came up briefly in one \ndeposition. As we explained above, that cannot be reasonably \ntreated as fair notice that the hospital would actually assert \nthe defense and that the plaintiff would need to spend the \ntime and money needed to meet that defense. The plaintiff \nwas entitled to rely on Rule 8(c) and the hospital’s silence in \nits pleadings. \n The situation here is similar to that in Venters v. City of Del‐\nphi, where we concluded that the defendants waived their \nstatute of limitations affirmative defense. 123 F.3d 956, 967–69 \n(7th Cir. 1997). There, the defendants failed to include the de‐\nfense in their answers to the original and amended com‐\nplaints. We could “discern no justification for the delay” when \nthey asserted the defense for the first time in their reply mem‐\norandum in support of their motion for summary judgment. \n\fNo. 17‐1469 17\n\nId. at 968. While a difference here is that Reed was at least \ngiven notice of the defense in the motion for summary judg‐\nment itself and could attempt to respond, she was still at a \nserious disadvantage. That notice came after the parties had \ncompleted discovery. As in Venters, we “cannot overlook the \nfailure to comply with Rule 8(c) in this context. Intentionally \nor not, [plaintiff] was bushwacked.” Id. at 969. Put simply, “it \nwas not [plaintiff’s] obligation to raise the defense, and if Rule \n8(c) is not to become a nullity, we must not countenance at‐\ntempts to invoke such defenses at the eleventh hour, without \nexcuse and without adequate notice to the plaintiff.” Id.4 \n Finally, the prejudice to Reed from the delayed assertion \nof the defense is especially acute here because the relevant law \nand facts simply are not clear. The ADA does not define what \nit means to be considered a “religious organization” or to be \n“controlled by a religious organization.” See 42 U.S.C. § \n12187. To our knowledge, no federal appellate court has yet \nconstrued this religious exemption. Several district courts \nhave—including the veteran judge who decided this case. \nSee Rose v. Cahee, 727 F. Supp. 2d 728, 747 (E.D. Wis. 2010).5 \n\n \n 4 In contrast, we held that a district court did not abuse its discretion \n\nin Robinson v. Sappington when it allowed the defendants to amend their \npleadings at summary judgment to add affirmative defenses. 351 F.3d 317, \n332–33 (7th Cir. 2003). There, the record showed that the plaintiff had suf‐\nficient notice that the defendants might pursue the defenses because de‐\nfense counsel had explored them in detail during discovery. Id. Further, \nthe plaintiff did not suggest she was prejudiced in any way by the late \namendment. Id. \n 5 In Rose, the court applied the religious exemption where a Roman \n\nCatholic institute sponsored a healthcare corporation and occupied a pri‐\nmary role in the corporation’s corporate governance structure, the insti‐\ntute members made up the entirety of one class of corporate membership, \n\f18 No. 17‐1469 \n\nThese district court decisions show that the issue can be com‐\nplex, both factually and legally. These decisions have cited \nand relied on the following Department of Justice interpreta‐\ntion of the religious exemption: \n The ADA’s exemption of religious organiza‐\n tions and religious entities controlled by reli‐\n gious organizations is very broad, encompass‐\n ing a wide variety of situations. Religious or‐\n ganizations and entities controlled by religious \n organizations have no obligations under the \n ADA. Even when a religious organization car‐\n ries out activities that would otherwise make it \n a public accommodation, the religious organi‐\n zation is exempt from ADA coverage. Thus, if a \n church itself operates a day care center, a \n\n \nand the institute’s class members had the sole authority to amend or re‐\npeal the corporation’s articles of incorporation and bylaws. 727 F. Supp. \n2d at 747. As for the other district court cases applying the exemption, \nReed correctly points out that in none was the defense raised late, and in \nall there was greater evidence of religious control. See Cole v. Saint Francis \nMedical Ctr., No. 1:15‐CV‐98(ACL), 2016 WL 7474988, at *4‐6 (E.D. Mo. \nDec. 29, 2016) (exemption was “properly raised by Defendant as an affirm‐\native defense” and hospital was “under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of \nthe Roman Catholic Dioceses[.]”); Marshall v. Sisters of the Holy Family of \nNazareth, 399 F. Supp. 2d 597, 606 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (school “solely operated \nand controlled by” order of nuns); White v. Denver Seminary, 157 F. Supp. \n2d 1171, 1173–74 (D. Colo. 2001) (seminary was founded by Baptist asso‐\nciation and employees were required to be active Christians). By contrast, \nin Sloan v. Community Christian Day School, LLC, a Christian school was \nfound to not be exempt since the school was not owned, affiliated with, or \nfinancially supported by any recognized religious group and was instead \nowned by two individuals who were not ministers. No. 3–15–0551, 2015 \nWL 10437824, at * 3, (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 11, 2015). \n\fNo. 17‐1469 19\n\n nursing home, a private school, or a diocesan \n school system, the operations of the center, \n home, school, or schools would not be subject to \n the requirements of the ADA or this part. The \n religious entity would not lose its exemption \n merely because the services provided were \n open to the general public. The test is whether \n the church or other religious organization oper‐\n ates the public accommodation, not which indi‐\n viduals receive the public accommodationʹs ser‐\n vices. \n Religious entities that are controlled by reli‐\n gious organizations are also exempt from the \n ADA’s requirements. Many religious organiza‐\n tions in the United States use lay boards and \n other secular or corporate mechanisms to oper‐\n ate schools and an array of social services. The \n use of a lay board or other mechanism does not \n itself remove the ADA’s religious exemption. \n Thus, a parochial school, having religious doc‐\n trine in its curriculum and sponsored by a reli‐\n gious order, could be exempt either as a reli‐\n gious organization or as an entity controlled by \n a religious organization, even if it has a lay \n board. The test remains a factual one – whether the \n church or other religious organization controls the \n operations of the school or of the service or whether \n the school or service is itself a religious organization. \n28 C.F.R. ch. 1., pt. 36, App’x C (emphasis added). \n For this appeal, the critical points are that the law govern‐\ning the hospital’s affirmative defense is still highly contestable \n\f20 No. 17‐1469 \n\nand its application may well depend on a host of facts that \nwould need to be explored in some depth. Before summary \njudgment briefing, plaintiff Reed had no notice that she \nneeded to prepare to meet the defense. \n We have considered the possibility of a response less dras‐\ntic than treating the hospital’s religious‐exemption defense as \nforfeited. One possibility would be to allow the parties to pur‐\nsue further discovery on that issue and to have the hospital \npay for plaintiff’s reasonable costs and attorney fees for that \nprocess. In this case, however, the hospital has offered no \ncredible excuse for its delay, and the normal rule is forfeiture \nof unpleaded defenses. The remedy of reopening discovery \nwould also impose additional delay on Reed. We see no miti‐\ngating factors here that would favor anything other than en‐\nforcement of Rule 8(c) as written and treating the defense as \nforfeited. We therefore reverse summary judgment for the \nhospital on the ADA claims. \n B. Rehabilitation Act Claims \n 1. Legal Standard \n We now turn to the merits of Reed’s Rehabilitation Act \nclaims. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides: “No \notherwise qualified individual with a disability … shall, \nsolely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the \nparticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to \ndiscrimination under any program or activity receiving Fed‐\neral financial assistance[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Four elements \nmust be satisfied to establish a violation of Section 504: (1) the \nplaintiff must be a handicapped individual as defined by the \nAct; (2) the plaintiff must be “otherwise qualified” for partic‐\nipation in the program; (3) the program must receive federal \n\fNo. 17‐1469 21\n\nfinancial assistance; and (4) the plaintiff must have been “de‐\nnied the benefits of the program solely because of his handi‐\ncap.” See Mallet v. Wisconsin Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation, \n130 F.3d 1245, 1257 (7th Cir. 1997). The hospital contests only \nthis fourth element of sole cause. The ADA and the Rehabili‐\ntation Act are otherwise very similar, but the Rehabilitation \nAct prohibits discrimination only if it is “solely by reason of” \na person’s disability. The ADA permits mixed‐motive claims. \nSee Whitaker v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Health Servs., 849 F.3d 681, \n684 (7th Cir. 2017). \n A plaintiff suing under the Rehabilitation Act can assert \nthat she was intentionally discriminated against or that the \ndefendant failed to afford her a reasonable accommodation \nfor her disability. The Rehabilitation Act does not contain an \nexplicit accommodation requirement, but the Supreme Court \nhas located a duty to accommodate in the statute generally. \nWe have written that in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 \n(1985), \n the Court explained that “‘a refusal to modify \n an existing program might become unreasona‐\n ble and discriminatory.’” Id. at 300 (quoting \n Southeastern Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, \n 413 (1979)). The Rehabilitation Act’s promise of \n “meaningful access” to state benefits, according \n to the Court, means that “reasonable accommo‐\n dations in the grantee’s program or benefit may \n have to be made.” Id. at 301. \nWisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 465 \nF.3d 737, 747 (7th Cir. 2006). We explained further: \n\f22 No. 17‐1469 \n\n Following Choate, several courts of appeals have \n adopted the view that the Rehabilitation Act re‐\n quires public entities to modify federally as‐\n sisted programs if such a modification is neces‐\n sary to ensure that the disabled have equal ac‐\n cess to the benefits of that program. See, e.g., \n Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 274–75 \n (2d Cir. 2003). These circuits, including ours, \n also follow the corollary principle implicit in the \n Choate decision that the Rehabilitation Act helps \n disabled individuals obtain access to benefits \n only when they would have difficulty obtaining \n those benefits “by reason of” their disabilities, \n and not because of some quality that they share \n generally with the public. \nId. at 748. \n 2. Analysis of the Rehabilitation Act Claims \n We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary \njudgment on the merits. Whitaker, 849 F.3d at 684. Summary \njudgment is proper when the moving party shows that there \nis no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is en‐\ntitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). \n We reverse the dismissal of Reed’s intentional discrimina‐\ntion claim, which is based only on the seclusion‐room inci‐\ndent. The district court determined that the undisputed facts \nshow that the “seclusion incident” was motivated at least in \npart by factors other than Reed’s disability. The court stated \nthat Reed “admits that she spilled her coffee and thereafter \nfell to the floor screaming. She further concedes that Miller \n\fNo. 17‐1469 23\n\ntold her that she could not remain on the floor in the middle \nof the hallway. (Docket # 55 ¶ 43).” Reed, 236 F. Supp. at 1106. \n The district court either misconstrued or exaggerated \nReed’s concessions. Reed has not conceded any of the reasons \nMiller cited for taking her to the seclusion room. The district \ncourt did not include a record citation for its assertion that \nReed admitted she fell to the floor “screaming.” We have not \nseen such an admission in the record. Reed admits that she \nspilled coffee and was on the floor of the hallway. She specif‐\nically denies she was screaming. See Dkt. 55, ¶¶ 38–45, citing \nReed Affidavit, Ex. A, Dkt. 55‐26. According to the district \ncourt, this disturbance at least partially motivated the hospital \nstaff to put her in seclusion. \n The undisputed facts show that Reed spilled coffee on her‐\nself and was on the floor of the hallway. We agree with the \ndistrict court that Miller was responding to this situation (and \nnot solely to Reed’s disabilities) when he picked her up off the \nfloor. So far, so good. But Miller himself testified that, at that \npoint, he started to take Reed back to her own room (not the \nseclusion room). It was only during the walk to her room that, \nbecause of her screaming, the decision was made to take her \nto the seclusion room. Thus, a jury could find that nothing \nReed has conceded (spilling coffee and lying on the floor) led \nMiller to take her to the seclusion room. Spilling the coffee \nand lying on the floor prompted Miller only to take Reed back \nto her own room. It was the action that Reed specifically de‐\nnies (screaming during the walk) that Miller says led him and \nFry to take Reed to the seclusion room. Reed has not conceded \nthat she did anything disruptive during the walk to her room, \nwhen hospital staff decided to take her to the seclusion room. \nThe material facts that led to her being placed in seclusion are \n\f24 No. 17‐1469 \n\ndisputed. Crediting Reed’s version of the event, a reasonable \njury could find that the hospital intentionally discriminated \nagainst Reed solely on the basis of her disability.6 \n We also reverse the dismissal of Reed’s reasonable accom‐\nmodation claim. This claim is based on all of the allegations \nReed asserts in her complaint (seclusion‐room incident; with‐\nholding Dynavox; security escort off the premises; and denial \nof requests to use telephone, to see a chaplain, and to see med‐\nical records). While medical professionals certainly are enti‐\ntled to discretion in managing their patients, the hospital has \nnot argued that it withheld the Dynavox in the exercise of pro‐\nfessional judgment to treat Reed’s mental illness. Withhold‐\ning the Dynavox in particular may support a viable failure‐to‐\n\n \n 6 The parties have not addressed another issue that may arise on re‐\n\nmand. The Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act do \nnot create a remedy for medical malpractice. See Grzan v. Charter Hosp., \n104 F.3d 116, 122–23 (7th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds as stated \nin Amundson v. Wisc. Dep’t of Health Svcs., 721 F.3d 871, 874 (7th Cir. 2013); \nBryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996) (prisoner’s claim); ac‐\ncord, e.g., McGugan v. Aldana‐Bernier, 752 F.3d 224, 231–32 (2d Cir. 2014); \nBurger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882, 883 (8th Cir. 2005); Schiavo ex rel. Schindler \nv. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2005); Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corp. \nof America, 403 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005). As the Second Circuit ex‐\nplained in McGugan, the term “discrimination” can have a benign (and \nperfectly lawful) sense, in which a health care provider makes a discrimi‐\nnating professional judgment about the type of treatment to provide to a \npatient, but can also have a pejorative sense that describes actions taken \nbased on irrelevant criteria under the influence of irrational bias. See 752 \nF.3d at 231–32, comparing United States v. University Hosp., 729 F.2d 144, \n156 (2d Cir. 1984), and Green v. City of New York, 465 F.3d 65, 78 (2d Cir. \n2006). In this appeal, the hospital has not argued that it withheld Reed’s \nDynavox from her as a benign form of discrimination, i.e., as an exercise \nof medical judgment for her appropriate treatment. \n\fNo. 17‐1469 25\n\naccommodate claim under the Rehabilitation Act, subject to \nthe considerations discussed above in note 6. \n The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of \nthe hospital is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for \nproceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, Circuit \nRule 36 shall apply.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Linda Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐1469 \\nLINDA REED, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellant, \\n v. \\n\\nCOLUMBIA ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL, \\n Defendant‐Appellee. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Eastern District of Wisconsin. \\n No. 14‐CV‐330 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff‐appellant Linda Reed al‐\\nleges that she suffered discrimination on the basis of her dis‐\\nabilities while she was a patient at defendant‐appellee Colum‐\\nbia St. Mary’s Hospital in March 2012. Among other things, \\nshe contends that the hospital failed to accommodate her dis‐\\nabilities by deliberately withholding from her a device she \\nused to speak and discriminated against her by putting her in \\n\\f2 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\na “seclusion” room to punish her. She brought claims under \\nTitle III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 \\nU.S.C. § 12181, which governs public accommodations of‐\\nfered by private entities, including hospitals, as well as Sec‐\\ntion 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Wis‐\\nconsin Mental Health Act, Wis. Stat. § 51.61. \\n The district court granted the hospital’s motion for sum‐\\nmary judgment, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice \\nand declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the \\nremaining state‐law claims. Reed v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hospi‐\\ntal, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1091 (E.D. Wis. 2017). The court held that \\nthe hospital did not need to comply with Title III of the ADA \\nbecause it fell within the Act’s exemption for entities con‐\\ntrolled by religious organizations. Id. at 1103–04, citing 42 \\nU.S.C. § 12187. The court also dismissed Reed’s Rehabilitation \\nAct claims, finding that the hospital’s alleged mistreatment of \\nReed was not premised solely on Reed’s disability. Id. at 1105–\\n08. \\n We reverse. The hospital raised its religious exemption af‐\\nfirmative defense to the ADA claims for the first time after \\ndiscovery, in its motion for summary judgment. We explain \\nbelow why we conclude it was an abuse of discretion to ex‐\\ncuse the hospital’s failure to raise this affirmative defense ear‐\\nlier. We also reverse the dismissal of Reed’s Rehabilitation Act \\nclaims on the merits because they depend on disputed facts. \\nI. Factual & Procedural Background \\n A. Reed’s Stay in the Hospital \\n Our statement of facts reflects our standard of review for \\na grant of summary judgment. We cannot vouch for the ob‐\\njective truth of every detail. We review the facts and draw all \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 3\\n\\ninferences from conflicting evidence in the light reasonably \\nmost favorable to Reed as the non‐moving party. Greengrass \\nv. International Monetary Systems Ltd., 776 F.3d 481, 485 (7th \\nCir. 2015). \\n Reed suffers from several disabilities, including tardive \\ndyskinesia (“TD”), bipolar disorder, and post‐traumatic stress \\ndisorder. TD is a neurological disorder that causes involun‐\\ntary facial and limb movements and makes speaking difficult. \\nReed has been prescribed a portable communication device \\ncalled a Dynavox that she can use to generate speech. \\n Reed entered the hospital’s emergency department on \\nMarch 8, 2012. She reported suicidal thoughts. She was admit‐\\nted to the inpatient behavioral health unit and left on March \\n12. Reed alleges that during her four‐day stay at the hospital \\nshe was discriminated against in multiple ways. She claims \\nthat she was denied the use of her Dynavox; that hospital staff \\nattempted to give her medication she was allergic to; that she \\nwas denied timely access to her medical records; that she was \\ndenied the use of a telephone to call her case manager (about \\nwhom the record reveals little); that she was denied access to \\na chaplain; and that she was physically escorted off the prem‐\\nises by two security guards. Notably, the hospital’s corporate \\nrepresentative and nursing supervisor, William Fry, testified \\nin his deposition that the Dynavox was locked up outside \\nReed’s room at night and that she had access to it during the \\nday only “as long as her behavior was appropriate.” \\n The most severe of Reed’s allegations is that on March 11, \\nhospital staff refused to give her the Dynavox and took her to \\na seclusion room, where she was dropped on a mattress on \\nthe floor and later attempted suicide. Reed and the hospital \\ngive differing accounts of what exactly took place during this \\n\\f4 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nincident. Reed claims that she asked for her Dynavox, that \\nhospital staff refused to give it to her, that her TD‐related \\nmovements caused her to spill coffee on herself and to fall to \\nthe ground, and that patient‐care assistant Andrew Miller \\ngrabbed her and put her in the seclusion room for about two \\nhours. Miller testified, on the other hand, that Reed was on \\nthe ground in a hallway crying and he told her she needed to \\nget out of the hallway. When he was walking her back to her \\nroom, he claims, she began to scream and he and nursing su‐\\npervisor Fry decided to take her to the seclusion room. On re‐\\nview of a grant of summary judgment for the defendant, of \\ncourse, we must accept the plaintiff’s version of events. Reed \\nwas discharged the day after this incident. According to Reed, \\nher Dynavox and other possessions were thrown into a cab, \\nand she was pushed into it by a security guard and sent off. \\n B. The District Court Proceedings \\n Reed filed her first complaint pro se in February 2014. The \\ndistrict court dismissed that case without prejudice. The next \\nmonth, Reed filed this new lawsuit, which the court construed \\nas raising claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. \\nThe district court dismissed again, holding that the dismissal \\nof the prior suit had preclusive effect and alternatively that \\nReed failed to state a claim. Reed appealed pro se. We vacated \\nand remanded because the first case had been dismissed with‐\\nout prejudice and thus did not preclude the second. Reed v. \\nColumbia St. Mary’s Hospital, 782 F.3d 331, 335–36 (7th Cir. \\n2015). We also held that Reed stated viable claims under the \\nADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 337. \\n On remand, the district court recruited counsel for Reed. \\nHer amended complaint asserted claims under the ADA for \\nintentional discrimination, denial of reasonable modification, \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 5\\n\\nand retaliation and intimidation; claims under the Rehabilita‐\\ntion Act for intentional discrimination and denial of reasona‐\\nble accommodation; and patients’‐rights claims under Wis‐\\nconsin state law. The hospital filed answers to both the origi‐\\nnal complaint and the amended complaint. Each answer as‐\\nserted several affirmative defenses. Neither answer men‐\\ntioned a religious exemption from the ADA. Discovery was \\nconducted from September 2015 to August 2016. In October \\n2016, the hospital moved for summary judgment, which the \\ndistrict court granted. \\nII. Analysis \\n This appeal presents one procedural issue and a cluster of \\nsubstantive issues. The procedural issue is whether the dis‐\\ntrict court abused its discretion in allowing the hospital to \\nraise for the first time on summary judgment the affirmative \\ndefense of the ADA’s Title III religious exemption. The sub‐\\nstantive issues concern the merits of the Rehabilitation Act \\nclaims. \\n A. The ADA Claims \\n 1. The Religious Exemption Defense Under ADA Title III \\n Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination by \\n“public accommodations,” including hospitals. See 42 U.S.C. \\n§ 12181(7). Title III provides: “No individual shall be discrim‐\\ninated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal \\nenjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, ad‐\\nvantages, or accommodations of any place of public accom‐\\nmodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). It is unlawful to “fail[] to take \\nsuch steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual \\nwith a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or \\notherwise treated differently than other individuals because \\n\\f6 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nof the absence of auxiliary aids and services,” unless the de‐\\nfendant can show that such accommodation “would funda‐\\nmentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privi‐\\nlege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would \\nresult in an undue burden.” § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). A physical \\nor mental impairment that “substantially limits one or more \\nmajor life activities,” including “speaking,” qualifies as a dis‐\\nability under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act (dis‐\\ncussed below). See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), (2)(A); 29 U.S.C. \\n§ 705(20)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(j)(2)(ii); 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(ii). \\n Title III of the ADA applies generally to hospitals, but Title \\nIII exempts from its requirements “religious organizations” \\nand “entities controlled by religious organizations, including \\nplaces of worship.” 42 U.S.C. § 12187. This exemption is an \\naffirmative defense. A defendant invoking it must plead it in \\nthe answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c); Castro v. Chicago Housing \\nAuthority, 360 F.3d 721, 735 (7th Cir. 2004). Rule 8(c) applies to \\n“any avoidance or affirmative defense,” and lists a number of \\nparticular defenses that must be pleaded. The religious ex‐\\nemption in Title III of the ADA is an affirmative defense be‐\\ncause it assumes the plaintiff can prove everything she must \\nto establish her claim but may still act to defeat her claim.1 \\n It makes sense for the defendant claiming the Title III reli‐\\ngious exemption to bear the burden of pleading and proving \\nits religious control. We have said that a defense not listed in \\nRule 8(c) is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded if the \\n \\n 1 “An affirmative defense is one that admits the allegations in the com‐\\n\\nplaint, but avoids liability, in whole or in part, by new allegations of ex‐\\ncuse, justification or other negating matters.” Divine v. Volunteers of Amer‐\\nica of Illinois, 319 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1003 (N.D. Ill. 2018), quoting Riemer v. \\nChase Bank USA, N.A., 274 F.R.D. 637, 639 (N.D. Ill. 2011). \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 7\\n\\ndefendant bears the burden of proof on the issue under state \\nlaw or if the defense does not controvert the plaintiff’s proof. \\nWinforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856, 872 (7th \\nCir. 2012). The religious exemption defense does not contro‐\\nvert the plaintiff’s proof. It also draws on facts ordinarily \\nwithin the knowledge and control of the defendant. See Gomez \\nv. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640–41 (1980) (qualified immunity is \\naffirmative defense under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; relevant facts are \\npeculiarly within knowledge and control of defendant); \\nWright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1271. An \\nADA plaintiff should not need to spend the money to antici‐\\npate this defense without fair and timely notice that the de‐\\nfendant intends to rely upon it. \\n 2. Consequences of Failure to Plead a Defense \\n A defendant’s failure to plead an affirmative defense may \\nresult in a waiver of the defense if the defendant has relin‐\\nquished it knowingly and intelligently, or forfeiture if the de‐\\nfendant merely failed to preserve the defense by pleading it. \\nSee Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 470 & n.4 (2012). Some of \\nour opinions use the terms waiver and forfeiture interchange‐\\nably, but Wood shows that we need to pay attention to the dif‐\\nference. Whether courts apply waiver or forfeiture in re‐\\nsponse to a failure to plead, the purpose of the pleading re‐\\nquirement for an affirmative defense “is to avoid surprise and \\nundue prejudice to the plaintiff by providing her notice and \\nthe opportunity to demonstrate why the defense should not \\nprevail.” Venters v. City of Delphi, 123 F.3d 956, 967 (7th Cir. \\n1997). \\n We have explained, however, that “the rule that forfeits an \\naffirmative defense not pleaded in the answer (or by an earlier \\nmotion) is, we want to make clear, not to be applied rigidly.” \\n\\f8 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nGarofalo v. Village of Hazel Crest, 754 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. \\n2014), citing Matthews v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., Inc., 642 F.3d \\n565, 570 (7th Cir. 2011). We will generally find that the failure \\nto plead an affirmative defense in the answer works a forfei‐\\nture “only if the plaintiff is harmed by the defendant’s delay \\nin asserting it.” Id. There are limits, though, and in exercising \\ntheir discretion in such matters, district courts must be alert \\nto the real and practical harms that can result from failures to \\nplead. We have explained that \\n the district court has the discretion to allow an \\n answer to be amended to assert an affirmative \\n defense not raised at the outset. The pertinence \\n of a particular defense may only become appar‐\\n ent after discovery, for example, in which case it \\n would be reasonable for the court to permit the \\n belated assertion of that defense. Nonetheless, \\n the defendant remains obligated to act in timely \\n fashion. Once the availability of an affirmative \\n defense is reasonably apparent, the defendant \\n must alert the parties and the court to his intent \\n to pursue that defense. A defendant should not \\n be permitted to “lie behind a log” and ambush \\n a plaintiff with an unexpected defense. The ap‐\\n propriate thing for the defendant to do, of \\n course, is to promptly seek the court’s leave to \\n amend his answer. His failure to do [so] risks a \\n finding that he has waived the defense. \\nVenters, 123 F.3d at 967–68 (internal citations and quotation \\nmarks omitted). \\n Pleadings shape the litigation, including the scope and \\ncost of discovery. Based on the claims and defenses raised in \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 9\\n\\nthe pleadings, the parties can discover information that is rel‐\\nevant, not privileged, and proportional to the needs of the \\ncase. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Many efficiencies are lost when \\nclaims or defenses are left out of pleadings and a party then \\nattempts to assert them at later stages. At the same time, it is \\nnot unusual for parties to discover new theories for claims or \\ndefenses in the course of discovery. Timely motions to amend \\npleadings for such newly discovered theories are appropriate \\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). \\n We see these problems more often when plaintiffs try to \\nraise new theories or claims for the first time in opposing sum‐\\nmary judgment. The concerns about unfair surprise and prej‐\\nudice with unpleaded affirmative defenses are similar: \\n When a new argument is made in summary \\n judgment briefing, the correct first step is to con‐\\n sider whether it changes the complaint’s factual \\n theory, or just the legal theories [the] plaintiff \\n has pursued so far. In the former situation, the \\n plaintiff may be attempting in effect to amend \\n its complaint, and the district court has discre‐\\n tion to deny the de facto amendment and to re‐\\n fuse to consider the new factual claims. In the \\n latter, the court should consider the conse‐\\n quences of allowing the plaintiff’s new theory. \\n If it would, for example, cause unreasonable de‐\\n lay, or make it more costly or difficult to defend \\n the suit, the district court can and should hold \\n the plaintiff to his original theory. \\nBRC Rubber & Plastics, Inc. v. Cont’l Carbon Co., 900 F.3d 529, \\n540 (7th Cir. 2018) (citations and internal quotation marks \\n\\f10 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nomitted), quoting Chessie Logistics Co. v. Krinos Holdings, Inc., \\n867 F.3d 852, 860 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n We routinely enforce this stricture against plaintiffs who \\nwait until summary‐judgment briefing to raise a new claim, \\ndespite the absence of an express pleading requirement, since \\ncomplaints need not identify legal theories. See, e.g., Anderson \\nv. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989, 997 (7th Cir. 2012) (pro se plaintiff); \\nWhitaker v. Milwaukee County, 772 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2014); \\nTrade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., 573 F.3d 401, 412 (7th \\nCir. 2009); Conner v. Illinois Dep’t of Natural Resources, 413 F.3d \\n675, 679–80 (7th Cir. 2005); Griffin v. Potter, 356 F.3d 824, 830 \\n(7th Cir. 2004); Grayson v. O’Neill, 308 F.3d 808, 817 (7th Cir. \\n2002); Whitaker v. T.J. Snow Co., 151 F.3d 661, 663–64 (7th Cir. \\n1998); Auston v. Schubnell, 116 F.3d 251, 255 (7th Cir. 1997); \\nShanahan v. City of Chicago, 82 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir. 1996); \\nKostovetsky v. Ambit Energy Holdings, LLC, 242 F. Supp. 3d 708, \\n718–19 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (reviewing Seventh Circuit case law). \\nIn much the same way, late assertions of affirmative de‐\\nfenses—like the religious exemption to Title III of the ADA—\\nmake litigation more costly and difficult and can make it un‐\\nfairly difficult for a plaintiff to pursue her claims. \\n 3. The District Court’s Ruling \\n The district court held that the hospital did not waive or \\nforfeit its religious exemption affirmative defense. The court \\nacknowledged that the hospital raised the defense for the first \\ntime in its motion for summary judgment but explained that \\nsince this defense is not expressly listed in Federal Rule of \\nCivil Procedure 8(c), “it is not clear that failure to assert it in \\nthe answer waives it.” 236 F. Supp. 3d at 1101. That rationale \\nwill not hold water here. Precedent offers sufficiently clear \\nguidance on when defenses not enumerated in Rule 8(c) must \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 11\\n\\nbe pleaded. See, e.g., Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640–41 \\n(1980); Winforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856, \\n872 (7th Cir. 2012); Sundstrand Corp. v. Standard Kollsman In‐\\ndustries, Inc., 488 F.2d 807, 813 (7th Cir. 1973); Brunswick Leas‐\\ning Corp. v. Wisconsin Cent., Ltd., 136 F.3d 521, 530 (7th Cir. \\n1998). The statutory exemption here is based on facts in a de‐\\nfendant’s control and clearly falls within the category of af‐\\nfirmative defenses. \\n The district court also held that Reed was not prejudiced \\nby the hospital’s delay in asserting this defense. For support, \\nthe court relied on an exchange during the deposition of nurs‐\\ning supervisor William Fry in February 2016, six months be‐\\nfore the close of discovery, to find that Reed knew “for a sub‐\\nstantial period that the religious exemption defense was a \\npossibility.” Reed, 236 F. Supp. 3d at 1101. We respectfully dis‐\\nagree. Here is the entire discussion from Fry’s deposition: \\n Q And so who – what is your understanding of \\n the ownership of Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital \\n Milwaukee? \\n MR. FOLEY: Object to form and foundation. \\n THE WITNESS: I don’t really know the answer \\n to that. I don’t really understand – I don’t know \\n the answer to that. \\n BY MS. BARNES: Who owns the organization? \\n MR. FOLEY: Object to form and foundation. \\n THE WITNESS: I’ll try to answer that. Ascen‐\\n sion Healthcare is our parent sponsor of this \\n ministry. \\n\\f12 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\n BY MS. BARNES: What does that mean, spon‐\\n sor? \\n MR. FOLEY: Object to form. \\n THE WITNESS: Ascension Healthcare has mul‐\\n tiple hospitals in multiple states across the \\n country. That is, again, our – as far as I under‐\\n stand it, our parent ownership structure. \\n BY MS. BARNES: Okay. And is Ascension a re‐\\n ligious organization? \\n A Yes. \\n Q What type of religious organization? \\n A It’s a mission of the Roman Catholic Church. \\n Q A mission? \\n A Um‐hum. \\n Q So is it – is it – \\n A A ministry, I should have said. I ministry of \\n the Roman Catholic Church. \\n Q So is it – does it follow the principles of the \\n Catholic church, when you say “ministry”? \\n MR. FOLEY: I’ll object to form and foundation. \\n I think this is far afield of – \\n THE WITNESS: Yeah, this is beyond my \\n knowledge and expertise. \\n MR. FOLEY: – his knowledge. But if you can an‐\\n swer, go ahead. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 13\\n\\n THE WITNESS: As far as I know, yes. I guess I \\n don’t really understand the question. \\n BY MS. BARNES: What does it mean to be a \\n ministry, I guess? I’m trying to understand it as \\n well. \\n A Well, we’re a not for profit in the ministry of \\n providing healthcare. \\nFry Dep. at 13–15. \\n This brief exchange was with a witness who obviously did \\nnot understand the issue or identify the exemption, let alone \\ntry to assert the exemption. It is not comparable to a lawyer’s \\nstatement that the party intends to assert a defense. The ex‐\\nchange did not put Reed on fair notice that the hospital would \\nbe asserting the religious exemption and that she needed to \\nspend the time and money to conduct full‐bore discovery on \\nwhether the hospital could satisfy the ADA’s religious ex‐\\nemption. \\n The district court also thought that Reed knew when she \\nfiled suit that the hospital was at least nominally associated \\nwith the Catholic faith. Nominal association told plaintiff and \\ntells us nothing about the availability of the religious exemp‐\\ntion. The statutory test is “control.” 42 U.S.C. § 12187. Count‐\\nless entities have names that are associated with religions but \\nare not subject to religious control. \\n Finally, the district court noted that Reed’s response to the \\nhospital’s motion for summary judgment showed that she \\nhad studied the hospital’s corporate structure and governing \\ndocuments (or at least those submitted by the hospital). We \\n\\f14 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nhave a limited record before us on this issue.2 The structure \\nappears to be as follows: the hospital’s sole corporate member \\nis Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. In turn, Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. \\nis “sponsored by” its two corporate members: Ascension \\nHealth (a Catholic national health system) and Columbia \\nHealth System, Inc. (a non‐sectarian community health sys‐\\ntem). Ascension Health is a subsidiary of Ascension Health \\nAlliance, which is a subsidiary of Ascension Health Minis‐\\ntries. The Congregation of Consecrated Life and Societies of \\nApostolic Life of the Vatican conferred public juridic person‐\\nality on Ascension Health Ministries in June 2011. Ascension \\nHealth Ministries’ governing documents state that it shall be \\ngoverned in accordance with canon law. Thus, the hospital is \\nsubject to two lines of control: (1) a Catholic one (Ascension \\nHealth Ministries —> Ascension Health Alliance —> Ascen‐\\nsion Health —> Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. —> the hospital); \\nand (2) a non‐sectarian one (Columbia Health System —> Co‐\\nlumbia St. Mary’s Inc. —> the hospital). \\n The hospital’s bylaws reflect these two lines of control: \\nthey say that the hospital “shall be and remain a Catholic fa‐\\ncility or institution” but also that the hospital will “respect the \\nnonsectarian traditions and values of Columbia Health Sys‐\\ntem.” Similarly reflecting these two lines of control but revers‐\\ning the emphasis, the bylaws of Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. (the \\nhospital’s sole corporate member) say that it “shall not be a \\nCatholic facility or institution” but that it will not perform \\n\\n \\n 2 The record is limited since this defense was sprung on Reed in the \\n\\nmotion for summary judgment. Most of the relevant evidence comes from \\nthe documents the hospital chose to submit. Even those documents show \\na complicated corporate legal structure and an ambiguous relationship \\nwith the hospital’s Catholic affiliates. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 15\\n\\nmedical procedures inconsistent with Catholic ethical direc‐\\ntives. Columbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s bylaws reserve certain pow‐\\ners to both Ascension Health and Columbia Health System.3 \\nColumbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s officers and board members “serve \\nex officio” as the hospital’s officers and board members. Im‐\\nportant for the issue of control, the board members are recom‐\\nmended by Columbia St. Mary’s Inc.’s existing board for ap‐\\npointment by Ascension Health and are intended to “be \\nbroadly representative of the communities served.” Relying \\non this corporate structure as disclosed by the hospital in its \\nsummary judgment materials, the district court determined \\nthat the hospital was sufficiently controlled by the Catholic \\nChurch as to fall within Title III’s religious exemption and to \\nmake it immune to Reed’s ADA claims. \\n 4. Abuse of Discretion \\n We express no opinion on whether, after full discovery \\nand fair litigation of the issue on a more complete record, the \\nhospital might fit within the exemption for entities controlled \\nby religious organizations. Instead, we find that the district \\ncourt abused its discretion by considering this affirmative de‐\\nfense at all. \\n Several factors point in this direction. First, the defendant \\nhospital has offered no excuse or explanation for failing to \\nplead the defense in it answers or for raising the defense so \\nlate. Without a credible excuse for the delay, the hospital’s late \\ninvocation of the defense looks like a straight ambush of the \\nplaintiff when it was too late for her to put together a \\n \\n 3 We are told that these dual lines of control are also detailed in the \\n\\nterms of an Affiliation Agreement, but that document has not been pro‐\\nduced to Reed or included in the record. \\n\\f16 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\ncomprehensive rebuttal. Second, the religious‐exemption de‐\\nfense should not ordinarily depend on discovery from the \\nplaintiff, as will often be the case with other affirmative de‐\\nfenses such as statutes of limitations, estoppels, waivers, and \\nothers. Instead, the religious‐exemption defense will ordinar‐\\nily depend on facts within the knowledge and control of the \\ndefendant itself. Third, the defendant did not deploy this de‐\\nfense until after discovery had closed, meaning both parties \\nhad already invested a good deal of time and money in the \\ncase on the legitimate expectation that they knew what the is‐\\nsues were. Allowing a last‐minute defense that introduces \\nsuch new factual and legal issues after discovery has closed \\nraises the costs of litigation and allows the party that was at \\nleast negligent in failing to plead its defense to take unfair ad‐\\nvantage of its opposing party. Fourth, the district court’s ra‐\\ntionale for allowing the defense to be raised so late simply \\ndoes not withstand scrutiny. In this case, a few facts relevant \\nto this potential affirmative defense came up briefly in one \\ndeposition. As we explained above, that cannot be reasonably \\ntreated as fair notice that the hospital would actually assert \\nthe defense and that the plaintiff would need to spend the \\ntime and money needed to meet that defense. The plaintiff \\nwas entitled to rely on Rule 8(c) and the hospital’s silence in \\nits pleadings. \\n The situation here is similar to that in Venters v. City of Del‐\\nphi, where we concluded that the defendants waived their \\nstatute of limitations affirmative defense. 123 F.3d 956, 967–69 \\n(7th Cir. 1997). There, the defendants failed to include the de‐\\nfense in their answers to the original and amended com‐\\nplaints. We could “discern no justification for the delay” when \\nthey asserted the defense for the first time in their reply mem‐\\norandum in support of their motion for summary judgment. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 17\\n\\nId. at 968. While a difference here is that Reed was at least \\ngiven notice of the defense in the motion for summary judg‐\\nment itself and could attempt to respond, she was still at a \\nserious disadvantage. That notice came after the parties had \\ncompleted discovery. As in Venters, we “cannot overlook the \\nfailure to comply with Rule 8(c) in this context. Intentionally \\nor not, [plaintiff] was bushwacked.” Id. at 969. Put simply, “it \\nwas not [plaintiff’s] obligation to raise the defense, and if Rule \\n8(c) is not to become a nullity, we must not countenance at‐\\ntempts to invoke such defenses at the eleventh hour, without \\nexcuse and without adequate notice to the plaintiff.” Id.4 \\n Finally, the prejudice to Reed from the delayed assertion \\nof the defense is especially acute here because the relevant law \\nand facts simply are not clear. The ADA does not define what \\nit means to be considered a “religious organization” or to be \\n“controlled by a religious organization.” See 42 U.S.C. § \\n12187. To our knowledge, no federal appellate court has yet \\nconstrued this religious exemption. Several district courts \\nhave—including the veteran judge who decided this case. \\nSee Rose v. Cahee, 727 F. Supp. 2d 728, 747 (E.D. Wis. 2010).5 \\n\\n \\n 4 In contrast, we held that a district court did not abuse its discretion \\n\\nin Robinson v. Sappington when it allowed the defendants to amend their \\npleadings at summary judgment to add affirmative defenses. 351 F.3d 317, \\n332–33 (7th Cir. 2003). There, the record showed that the plaintiff had suf‐\\nficient notice that the defendants might pursue the defenses because de‐\\nfense counsel had explored them in detail during discovery. Id. Further, \\nthe plaintiff did not suggest she was prejudiced in any way by the late \\namendment. Id. \\n 5 In Rose, the court applied the religious exemption where a Roman \\n\\nCatholic institute sponsored a healthcare corporation and occupied a pri‐\\nmary role in the corporation’s corporate governance structure, the insti‐\\ntute members made up the entirety of one class of corporate membership, \\n\\f18 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nThese district court decisions show that the issue can be com‐\\nplex, both factually and legally. These decisions have cited \\nand relied on the following Department of Justice interpreta‐\\ntion of the religious exemption: \\n The ADA’s exemption of religious organiza‐\\n tions and religious entities controlled by reli‐\\n gious organizations is very broad, encompass‐\\n ing a wide variety of situations. Religious or‐\\n ganizations and entities controlled by religious \\n organizations have no obligations under the \\n ADA. Even when a religious organization car‐\\n ries out activities that would otherwise make it \\n a public accommodation, the religious organi‐\\n zation is exempt from ADA coverage. Thus, if a \\n church itself operates a day care center, a \\n\\n \\nand the institute’s class members had the sole authority to amend or re‐\\npeal the corporation’s articles of incorporation and bylaws. 727 F. Supp. \\n2d at 747. As for the other district court cases applying the exemption, \\nReed correctly points out that in none was the defense raised late, and in \\nall there was greater evidence of religious control. See Cole v. Saint Francis \\nMedical Ctr., No. 1:15‐CV‐98(ACL), 2016 WL 7474988, at *4‐6 (E.D. Mo. \\nDec. 29, 2016) (exemption was “properly raised by Defendant as an affirm‐\\native defense” and hospital was “under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of \\nthe Roman Catholic Dioceses[.]”); Marshall v. Sisters of the Holy Family of \\nNazareth, 399 F. Supp. 2d 597, 606 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (school “solely operated \\nand controlled by” order of nuns); White v. Denver Seminary, 157 F. Supp. \\n2d 1171, 1173–74 (D. Colo. 2001) (seminary was founded by Baptist asso‐\\nciation and employees were required to be active Christians). By contrast, \\nin Sloan v. Community Christian Day School, LLC, a Christian school was \\nfound to not be exempt since the school was not owned, affiliated with, or \\nfinancially supported by any recognized religious group and was instead \\nowned by two individuals who were not ministers. No. 3–15–0551, 2015 \\nWL 10437824, at * 3, (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 11, 2015). \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 19\\n\\n nursing home, a private school, or a diocesan \\n school system, the operations of the center, \\n home, school, or schools would not be subject to \\n the requirements of the ADA or this part. The \\n religious entity would not lose its exemption \\n merely because the services provided were \\n open to the general public. The test is whether \\n the church or other religious organization oper‐\\n ates the public accommodation, not which indi‐\\n viduals receive the public accommodationʹs ser‐\\n vices. \\n Religious entities that are controlled by reli‐\\n gious organizations are also exempt from the \\n ADA’s requirements. Many religious organiza‐\\n tions in the United States use lay boards and \\n other secular or corporate mechanisms to oper‐\\n ate schools and an array of social services. The \\n use of a lay board or other mechanism does not \\n itself remove the ADA’s religious exemption. \\n Thus, a parochial school, having religious doc‐\\n trine in its curriculum and sponsored by a reli‐\\n gious order, could be exempt either as a reli‐\\n gious organization or as an entity controlled by \\n a religious organization, even if it has a lay \\n board. The test remains a factual one – whether the \\n church or other religious organization controls the \\n operations of the school or of the service or whether \\n the school or service is itself a religious organization. \\n28 C.F.R. ch. 1., pt. 36, App’x C (emphasis added). \\n For this appeal, the critical points are that the law govern‐\\ning the hospital’s affirmative defense is still highly contestable \\n\\f20 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\nand its application may well depend on a host of facts that \\nwould need to be explored in some depth. Before summary \\njudgment briefing, plaintiff Reed had no notice that she \\nneeded to prepare to meet the defense. \\n We have considered the possibility of a response less dras‐\\ntic than treating the hospital’s religious‐exemption defense as \\nforfeited. One possibility would be to allow the parties to pur‐\\nsue further discovery on that issue and to have the hospital \\npay for plaintiff’s reasonable costs and attorney fees for that \\nprocess. In this case, however, the hospital has offered no \\ncredible excuse for its delay, and the normal rule is forfeiture \\nof unpleaded defenses. The remedy of reopening discovery \\nwould also impose additional delay on Reed. We see no miti‐\\ngating factors here that would favor anything other than en‐\\nforcement of Rule 8(c) as written and treating the defense as \\nforfeited. We therefore reverse summary judgment for the \\nhospital on the ADA claims. \\n B. Rehabilitation Act Claims \\n 1. Legal Standard \\n We now turn to the merits of Reed’s Rehabilitation Act \\nclaims. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides: “No \\notherwise qualified individual with a disability … shall, \\nsolely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the \\nparticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to \\ndiscrimination under any program or activity receiving Fed‐\\neral financial assistance[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Four elements \\nmust be satisfied to establish a violation of Section 504: (1) the \\nplaintiff must be a handicapped individual as defined by the \\nAct; (2) the plaintiff must be “otherwise qualified” for partic‐\\nipation in the program; (3) the program must receive federal \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 21\\n\\nfinancial assistance; and (4) the plaintiff must have been “de‐\\nnied the benefits of the program solely because of his handi‐\\ncap.” See Mallet v. Wisconsin Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation, \\n130 F.3d 1245, 1257 (7th Cir. 1997). The hospital contests only \\nthis fourth element of sole cause. The ADA and the Rehabili‐\\ntation Act are otherwise very similar, but the Rehabilitation \\nAct prohibits discrimination only if it is “solely by reason of” \\na person’s disability. The ADA permits mixed‐motive claims. \\nSee Whitaker v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Health Servs., 849 F.3d 681, \\n684 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n A plaintiff suing under the Rehabilitation Act can assert \\nthat she was intentionally discriminated against or that the \\ndefendant failed to afford her a reasonable accommodation \\nfor her disability. The Rehabilitation Act does not contain an \\nexplicit accommodation requirement, but the Supreme Court \\nhas located a duty to accommodate in the statute generally. \\nWe have written that in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 \\n(1985), \\n the Court explained that “‘a refusal to modify \\n an existing program might become unreasona‐\\n ble and discriminatory.’” Id. at 300 (quoting \\n Southeastern Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, \\n 413 (1979)). The Rehabilitation Act’s promise of \\n “meaningful access” to state benefits, according \\n to the Court, means that “reasonable accommo‐\\n dations in the grantee’s program or benefit may \\n have to be made.” Id. at 301. \\nWisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 465 \\nF.3d 737, 747 (7th Cir. 2006). We explained further: \\n\\f22 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\n Following Choate, several courts of appeals have \\n adopted the view that the Rehabilitation Act re‐\\n quires public entities to modify federally as‐\\n sisted programs if such a modification is neces‐\\n sary to ensure that the disabled have equal ac‐\\n cess to the benefits of that program. See, e.g., \\n Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 274–75 \\n (2d Cir. 2003). These circuits, including ours, \\n also follow the corollary principle implicit in the \\n Choate decision that the Rehabilitation Act helps \\n disabled individuals obtain access to benefits \\n only when they would have difficulty obtaining \\n those benefits “by reason of” their disabilities, \\n and not because of some quality that they share \\n generally with the public. \\nId. at 748. \\n 2. Analysis of the Rehabilitation Act Claims \\n We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary \\njudgment on the merits. Whitaker, 849 F.3d at 684. Summary \\njudgment is proper when the moving party shows that there \\nis no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is en‐\\ntitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). \\n We reverse the dismissal of Reed’s intentional discrimina‐\\ntion claim, which is based only on the seclusion‐room inci‐\\ndent. The district court determined that the undisputed facts \\nshow that the “seclusion incident” was motivated at least in \\npart by factors other than Reed’s disability. The court stated \\nthat Reed “admits that she spilled her coffee and thereafter \\nfell to the floor screaming. She further concedes that Miller \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 23\\n\\ntold her that she could not remain on the floor in the middle \\nof the hallway. (Docket # 55 ¶ 43).” Reed, 236 F. Supp. at 1106. \\n The district court either misconstrued or exaggerated \\nReed’s concessions. Reed has not conceded any of the reasons \\nMiller cited for taking her to the seclusion room. The district \\ncourt did not include a record citation for its assertion that \\nReed admitted she fell to the floor “screaming.” We have not \\nseen such an admission in the record. Reed admits that she \\nspilled coffee and was on the floor of the hallway. She specif‐\\nically denies she was screaming. See Dkt. 55, ¶¶ 38–45, citing \\nReed Affidavit, Ex. A, Dkt. 55‐26. According to the district \\ncourt, this disturbance at least partially motivated the hospital \\nstaff to put her in seclusion. \\n The undisputed facts show that Reed spilled coffee on her‐\\nself and was on the floor of the hallway. We agree with the \\ndistrict court that Miller was responding to this situation (and \\nnot solely to Reed’s disabilities) when he picked her up off the \\nfloor. So far, so good. But Miller himself testified that, at that \\npoint, he started to take Reed back to her own room (not the \\nseclusion room). It was only during the walk to her room that, \\nbecause of her screaming, the decision was made to take her \\nto the seclusion room. Thus, a jury could find that nothing \\nReed has conceded (spilling coffee and lying on the floor) led \\nMiller to take her to the seclusion room. Spilling the coffee \\nand lying on the floor prompted Miller only to take Reed back \\nto her own room. It was the action that Reed specifically de‐\\nnies (screaming during the walk) that Miller says led him and \\nFry to take Reed to the seclusion room. Reed has not conceded \\nthat she did anything disruptive during the walk to her room, \\nwhen hospital staff decided to take her to the seclusion room. \\nThe material facts that led to her being placed in seclusion are \\n\\f24 No. 17‐1469 \\n\\ndisputed. Crediting Reed’s version of the event, a reasonable \\njury could find that the hospital intentionally discriminated \\nagainst Reed solely on the basis of her disability.6 \\n We also reverse the dismissal of Reed’s reasonable accom‐\\nmodation claim. This claim is based on all of the allegations \\nReed asserts in her complaint (seclusion‐room incident; with‐\\nholding Dynavox; security escort off the premises; and denial \\nof requests to use telephone, to see a chaplain, and to see med‐\\nical records). While medical professionals certainly are enti‐\\ntled to discretion in managing their patients, the hospital has \\nnot argued that it withheld the Dynavox in the exercise of pro‐\\nfessional judgment to treat Reed’s mental illness. Withhold‐\\ning the Dynavox in particular may support a viable failure‐to‐\\n\\n \\n 6 The parties have not addressed another issue that may arise on re‐\\n\\nmand. The Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act do \\nnot create a remedy for medical malpractice. See Grzan v. Charter Hosp., \\n104 F.3d 116, 122–23 (7th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds as stated \\nin Amundson v. Wisc. Dep’t of Health Svcs., 721 F.3d 871, 874 (7th Cir. 2013); \\nBryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996) (prisoner’s claim); ac‐\\ncord, e.g., McGugan v. Aldana‐Bernier, 752 F.3d 224, 231–32 (2d Cir. 2014); \\nBurger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882, 883 (8th Cir. 2005); Schiavo ex rel. Schindler \\nv. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2005); Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corp. \\nof America, 403 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005). As the Second Circuit ex‐\\nplained in McGugan, the term “discrimination” can have a benign (and \\nperfectly lawful) sense, in which a health care provider makes a discrimi‐\\nnating professional judgment about the type of treatment to provide to a \\npatient, but can also have a pejorative sense that describes actions taken \\nbased on irrelevant criteria under the influence of irrational bias. See 752 \\nF.3d at 231–32, comparing United States v. University Hosp., 729 F.2d 144, \\n156 (2d Cir. 1984), and Green v. City of New York, 465 F.3d 65, 78 (2d Cir. \\n2006). In this appeal, the hospital has not argued that it withheld Reed’s \\nDynavox from her as a benign form of discrimination, i.e., as an exercise \\nof medical judgment for her appropriate treatment. \\n\\fNo. 17‐1469 25\\n\\naccommodate claim under the Rehabilitation Act, subject to \\nthe considerations discussed above in note 6. \\n The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of \\nthe hospital is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for \\nproceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, Circuit \\nRule 36 shall apply.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":688,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589156,"string":"4,589,156"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Joseph Miller v. Michael Downey"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-1507"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, ROVNER, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-1507\\nJOSEPH MILLER,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nMICHAEL DOWNEY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Central District of Illinois.\\n No. 2:14-cv-2211 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, ROVNER, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Between 2012 and 2013, the Jerome\\nCombs Detention Center in Kankakee, Illinois, prohibited\\ninmates from receiving any newspapers. While awaiting trial\\non bank robbery charges, Joseph Miller’s family bought him\\na $279 subscription to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin to help\\nhim with his case. Deeming the Law Bulletin a newspaper, jail\\nofficials precluded Miller from receiving it. Miller responded\\nwith a lawsuit challenging the jail’s prohibition and\\n\\f2 No. 17-1507\\n\\nconfiscation of the publication and seeking to recover the\\nsubscription fee. The district court construed the lawsuit as\\nrequiring it to answer, not the narrow question of whether\\nMiller had a right to receive a legal publication like the Law\\nBulletin, but instead the broader question of whether the jail’s\\nban on all newspapers offended the First Amendment. In the\\nend, the district court upheld the newspaper ban and\\nawarded summary judgment to the defendant jail officials.\\nBecause the district court erred in reaching and resolving such\\na broad constitutional question—and the record was not fully\\ndeveloped as it pertains to the jail’s restriction on legal\\npublications—we vacate the district court’s judgment and\\nremand for further proceedings.\\n I\\n A\\n Pursuant to an agreement between the United States\\nMarshals Service and the Kankakee County Sheriff’s Office,\\nJoseph Miller was detained at the Jerome Combs Detention\\nCenter or JCDC from February 2012 to August 2014 while\\nawaiting trial and sentencing on federal charges. Because the\\njail did not provide inmates access to federal case law, Miller,\\na federal prisoner, asked his family to buy him a subscription\\nto a legal publication covering federal criminal law. He\\nwanted to better understand his case and assist with his\\ndefense, so his family ordered a one-year subscription to the\\nChicago Daily Law Bulletin and arranged for delivery to him at\\nthe facility.\\n Miller never received his subscription. He instead learned\\nthat the publication was deemed contraband because, accord-\\ning to Assistant Chief of Corrections Chad Kolitwenzew,\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 3\\n\\n“[t]he Inmate Handbook states [the jail does] not allow news-\\npapers.” Issues of the Law Bulletin, therefore, were intercepted\\nevery day for ten months and disposed of by jail staff without\\nany notice to Miller.\\n The JCDC’s policy on inmate mail was not a model of clar-\\nity during the relevant period. The jail did not maintain a\\nwritten policy listing what items inmates were prohibited\\nfrom receiving. Rather, and as best we can tell, the jail consid-\\nered newspapers contraband because the Inmate Handbook\\ndid not expressly say inmates could possess them. Jail officials\\nviewed the Law Bulletin as a newspaper because (and appar-\\nently only because) it was printed on newsprint.\\n Adding to the confusion, however, is that during this same\\nperiod the jail permitted inmates to receive personal\\nsubscriptions to Prison Legal News. This was so even though\\nPrison Legal News, just like the Law Bulletin, is printed on\\nnewsprint. So, too, was Prison Legal News not listed as a\\npermitted item in the JCDC Inmate Handbook.\\n B\\n In 2014, after learning that copies of the Law Bulletin had\\nbeen delivered to the JCDC and filing multiple grievances\\nwith the jail, Miller filed a pro se complaint alleging that the\\njail’s disposal of the publication, especially with no notice to\\nhim, violated the First Amendment and the Due Process\\nClause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\\n Upon screening Miller’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1915A, the district court determined that Miller stated a\\ncolorable First Amendment claim against three jail officials\\nand the Kankakee County Sheriff. Following discovery the\\ndefendants moved for summary judgment. Although Miller’s\\n\\f4 No. 17-1507\\n\\nsuit focused narrowly on the JCDC’s prohibition of the Law\\nBulletin—which he repeatedly stressed and explained was a\\nlegal publication and not a daily newspaper akin to the\\nChicago Tribune—the defendants’ motion instead asked the\\ndistrict court to treat Miller’s claims as broadly challenging\\nthe JCDC’s newspaper ban. They argued that safety and\\nsecurity risks posed by excess paper in the jail warranted a\\ntotal ban on newspapers, including the Law Bulletin.\\n The district court accepted the defendants’ framing of the\\nissue and granted their motion. Applying the four-factor test\\nannounced in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the court con-\\ncluded that the newspaper ban was permissible given the\\njail’s security, safety, and staffing concerns. The summary\\njudgment record, as the district court saw it, showed that in-\\nmates had used newspapers to flood cells and conceal contra-\\nband—circumstances justifying a categorical ban. The court\\nalso found that the defendants provided evidence that allow-\\ning inmates personal newspaper subscriptions “would un-\\nnecessarily strain staff resources in monitoring the amount of\\npaper within the facility and sorting the incoming mail.” The\\npolicy was not an “exaggerated response to legitimate peno-\\nlogical concerns,” the court continued, because the jail af-\\nforded inmates alternative ways to stay current on the news\\n(for example, by watching television) and to work on their le-\\ngal cases by reading Prison Legal News and using the jail’s law\\nlibrary.\\n On appeal, and now represented by counsel, Miller re-\\nnews his contention that the confiscation of the Law Bulletin\\nviolated his rights under the First Amendment. He also ar-\\ngues the district court committed error by altogether failing to\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 5\\n\\naddress, and perhaps implicitly rejecting, his due process\\nclaim.\\n II\\n A\\n The district court painted with much too broad a brush\\nand resolved a case never brought by Joseph Miller. Miller is\\na gifted writer and his pro se complaint, prepared in pencil on\\nnotebook paper, was remarkable for its clarity and precision.\\nHe alleged that the defendant jail officials violated his consti-\\ntutional rights by confiscating not a newspaper of general cir-\\nculation, but rather a legal publication, the Law Bulletin. He\\nexplained that he needed the publication because the JCDC\\nhad neither a law library nor any research materials concern-\\ning federal case law.\\n Miller took the same care in opposing the defendants’ mo-\\ntion for summary judgment, emphasizing that permitting him\\n(and other federal inmates housed in the Kankakee facility) to\\nreceive the Law Bulletin (or another legal publication) would\\nnot flood the facility with paper, overwhelm mailroom staff,\\nor create excessive security risks. In plain and simple terms,\\nMiller implored the district court to treat his claims for what\\nthey were—a lawsuit challenging the JCDC’s prohibition and\\nconfiscation of a legal publication—and not for what they\\nwere not—a request to receive a newspaper.\\n Though Miller may not have realized it, his submissions\\nto the district court aligned perfectly with the precept that\\nfederal courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, should strive\\nto decide constitutional cases narrowly and refrain from an-\\nswering questions broader than necessary to resolve the case\\nor controversy before them. The symmetry between Miller’s\\n\\f6 No. 17-1507\\n\\nposition and the principle of narrow constitutional decision-\\nmaking jumps off the pages of his submissions to the district\\ncourt. And it is this exact principle that charts a straightfor-\\nward course for resolving Miller’s claims.\\n The resolution of Miller’s claims on summary judgment\\ndid not require the district court to answer whether a jail’s\\nblanket ban on newspapers offends the First Amendment.\\nMiller’s counsel rightly observes that the trendline on that\\nquestion favors Miller. But the defendants are equally right to\\nobserve that the question entails complexity because some of\\nthe pertinent precedent, including our prior decision in\\nKincaid v. Rusk, 670 F.2d 737 (7th Cir. 1982), predates the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Turner. In Turner the Court\\nmodified preexisting law by announcing a new four-factor\\ntest for assessing prison regulations that impinge on inmates’\\nconstitutional rights. See 482 U.S. at 89–91. There is no dispute\\nthat the Turner test applies where, as here, a policy implicates\\na prisoner’s First Amendment rights, including the right to\\nread while detained. See King v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 415 F.3d\\n634, 638 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Freedom of speech is not merely\\nfreedom to speak; it is also freedom to read.”). And so too are\\nthe defendants right to observe that a proper analysis of\\nMiller’s claim would have to consider whether qualified\\nimmunity shielded them from liability if the JCDC’s blanket\\nnewspaper ban transgressed the First Amendment.\\n Another factor counseling in favor of taking Miller’s claim\\nas he pleaded it is that the Kankakee facility overhauled its\\npublication policy in June 2015. The JCDC now supplies the\\nfacility with multiple daily copies of USA Today and permits\\ninmates to receive subscriptions to up to four magazines per\\nmonth. This change suggests that broadly ruling on the\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 7\\n\\nconstitutionality of the JCDC’s prior policy was unnecessary.\\nAnd this is particularly so given that just days after Miller\\nfiled his complaint—seeking not only money damages but\\nalso declaratory and injunctive relief—the district court\\nlearned he was transferred to another facility, rendering his\\nrequest for injunctive relief moot. Put differently, when faced\\nwith a First Amendment challenge to an outdated policy\\nbrought by an inmate no longer housed at the facility in ques-\\ntion, the district court should have resolved the case on nar-\\nrower grounds, focusing precisely on the case and contro-\\nversy brought by Miller. See generally ISI Int’l v. Borden Ladner\\nGervais LLP, 256 F.3d 548, 552 (7th Cir. 2001) (emphasizing\\nthat “federal courts are supposed to do what they can to avoid\\nmaking constitutional decisions, and strive doubly to avoid\\nmaking unnecessary constitutional decisions”).\\n The proper path was to answer the narrow and specific\\nclaim advanced by Miller—whether the jail’s confiscation of\\nhis subscription to the Law Bulletin violated the First Amend-\\nment. See Hedgwood v. City of Eau Claire, 676 F.3d 600, 603 (7th\\nCir. 2012) (explaining that principles of “judicial restraint”\\ncounsel in favor of resolving “as-applied challenges before fa-\\ncial ones in an effort to decide constitutional attacks on the\\nnarrowest possible grounds and to avoid reaching unneces-\\nsary constitutional issues”).\\n B\\n Similar considerations caution against us reaching the\\nmerits of Miller’s First Amendment claim in the first instance.\\nThe better approach is to allow the district court and parties\\nthe initial opportunity to address the issues presented anew\\nand through the narrower frame of how the Turner factors\\n\\f8 No. 17-1507\\n\\napply to the JCDC’s confiscation of Miller’s subscription to a\\nlegal publication, the Law Bulletin.\\n Suffice it for us to offer but a few observations relevant to\\na narrowed consideration of the Turner factors. The district\\ncourt’s initial assessment of Miller’s claim rooted itself in facts\\nunsupported by the summary judgment record. For example,\\nthe court assessed the second Turner factor (whether alterna-\\ntive means of exercising the asserted right—here the right to\\nreceive and read legal publications—remain available to the\\ninmate) on the view that the JCDC had a law library with re-\\nsources on federal case law available to federal inmates like\\nMiller. The record shows otherwise. The JCDC had no law li-\\nbrary, and while inmates had access to an electronic database\\nwith Illinois legal resources, Miller contends that there was a\\ndearth of material on federal law in the jail—a point that went\\nuncontested by the defendants.\\n On this same factor, it appears that the JCDC’s policy\\n(throughout Miller’s detention) allowed inmates to receive\\nsubscriptions to Prison Legal News. The district court viewed\\nthis access as important without recognizing that the record\\nleft unclear whether, contrary to the jail’s policy, inmates were\\nin fact being allowed to receive the publication. Regardless, it\\nis not enough to say, as the district court suggested, that one\\nlegal publication is just like the next and thus Prison Legal\\nNews sufficed to serve a federal inmate’s every legal need.\\nWhat is more, the district court failed to recognize that Prison\\nLegal News—just like the Law Bulletin—is published on news-\\nprint, a fact casting at least some doubt on the JCDCʹs conten-\\ntion that banning all newsprint publications was essential to\\nprison safety, a consideration relevant to the first Turner fac-\\ntor.\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 9\\n\\n On remand, the right analysis asks whether permitting in-\\nmates to receive subscriptions to legal publications (subject to\\nreasonable limitations) jeopardized institutional objectives to\\nsuch an extent as to justify the JCDC’s confiscation of the Law\\nBulletin. On this front we make three final observations. First,\\nthe district court did not consider whether the JCDC’s change\\nof policy in 2015—to allow inmates to receive up to four mag-\\nazine subscriptions—warranted discounting the rationale\\nsupporting the JCDC’s decision to ban the Law Bulletin (and,\\nif so, to what degree) due to concerns associated with excess\\npaper. See Turner, 482 U.S. at 89 (“[T]here must be a ‘valid,\\nrational connection’ between the prison regulation and the le-\\ngitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it.”)\\n(quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984)).\\n Second, the record on summary judgment contained very\\nfew examples of any publications being used to create safety\\nrisks within the facility. And none of the examples the defend-\\nants did provide relate to newsprint publications. Though\\nmindful that courts must afford substantial deference to\\nprison administrators on matters of institutional security, see\\nOverton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003), that latitude is not\\nboundless: defendants still must present evidence “demon-\\nstrating a specific security concern that bears a nexus to the\\nprohibited conduct.” Riker v. Lemmon, 798 F.3d 546, 557 (7th\\nCir. 2015).\\n Third, we note based on the public record that the JCDC’s\\nprohibition of the Law Bulletin seems in substantial tension, if\\nnot direct conflict, with the County Jail Standards promul-\\ngated by the State of Illinois. See Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20,\\n§ 701.180 (providing that inmates in county facilities “may re-\\nceive … periodicals subject to inspection and approval by jail\\n\\f10 No. 17-1507\\n\\npersonnel”). The record is silent as to whether the JCDC is a\\nfacility subject to the County Jail Standards, and, if so, what\\nspecific security concerns prevented the facility from adher-\\ning to the regulation and allowing Miller to receive his sub-\\nscription to the Law Bulletin. That the Jail Standards seem to\\npermit inmates to receive all periodicals, while still ensuring\\nprison safety, suggests that Kankakee’s prohibition of an even\\nnarrower class of publications (specifically, legal publica-\\ntions) was an exaggerated response to its proffered security\\nconcerns, a consideration relevant to the entire Turner analy-\\nsis. See Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528 (2006). This too war-\\nrants consideration on remand.\\n III\\n We owe a final word to Miller’s procedural due process\\nclaim. Miller alleged that jail officials confiscated and de-\\nstroyed his copies of the Law Bulletin without any notice or\\nopportunity for him to appeal this action. In his amended\\ncomplaint, he expressly cast this allegation in terms of a vio-\\nlation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\\nThe district court, however, did not address this claim, per-\\nhaps on the view that it was entirely duplicative of Miller’s\\nFirst Amendment claim. But that is not so. Indeed, at a\\nbroader level, the imperative of fair process may take on\\nadded significance in the domain of free speech. See, e.g.,\\nHenry P. Monaghan, First Amendment “Due Process,” 83 Harv.\\nL. Rev. 518 (1970).\\n Due process requires that the decision to censor inmate\\nmail must be accompanied by “minimum procedural safe-\\nguards.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417 (1974), over-\\nruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401\\n(1989); see also Perry v. Secʹy, Fla. Depʹt of Corr., 664 F.3d 1359,\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 11\\n\\n1368 (11th Cir. 2011) (applying this standard to a due process\\nclaim). This standard has generally required officials to pro-\\nvide inmates with notice and an opportunity to object to a\\nconfiscation of their mail. See Martinez, 416 U.S. at 418. Miller\\ndeserves the opportunity on remand to have this claim con-\\nsidered under these standards.\\n For these reasons, we VACATE the judgment of the district\\ncourt and REMAND for further proceedings.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4366409/\", \"author_raw\": \"SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589156/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Joseph Miller v. Michael Downey\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-1507\nJOSEPH MILLER,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nMICHAEL DOWNEY, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Central District of Illinois.\n No. 2:14-cv-2211 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, ROVNER, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Between 2012 and 2013, the Jerome\nCombs Detention Center in Kankakee, Illinois, prohibited\ninmates from receiving any newspapers. While awaiting trial\non bank robbery charges, Joseph Miller’s family bought him\na $279 subscription to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin to help\nhim with his case. Deeming the Law Bulletin a newspaper, jail\nofficials precluded Miller from receiving it. Miller responded\nwith a lawsuit challenging the jail’s prohibition and\n\f2 No. 17-1507\n\nconfiscation of the publication and seeking to recover the\nsubscription fee. The district court construed the lawsuit as\nrequiring it to answer, not the narrow question of whether\nMiller had a right to receive a legal publication like the Law\nBulletin, but instead the broader question of whether the jail’s\nban on all newspapers offended the First Amendment. In the\nend, the district court upheld the newspaper ban and\nawarded summary judgment to the defendant jail officials.\nBecause the district court erred in reaching and resolving such\na broad constitutional question—and the record was not fully\ndeveloped as it pertains to the jail’s restriction on legal\npublications—we vacate the district court’s judgment and\nremand for further proceedings.\n I\n A\n Pursuant to an agreement between the United States\nMarshals Service and the Kankakee County Sheriff’s Office,\nJoseph Miller was detained at the Jerome Combs Detention\nCenter or JCDC from February 2012 to August 2014 while\nawaiting trial and sentencing on federal charges. Because the\njail did not provide inmates access to federal case law, Miller,\na federal prisoner, asked his family to buy him a subscription\nto a legal publication covering federal criminal law. He\nwanted to better understand his case and assist with his\ndefense, so his family ordered a one-year subscription to the\nChicago Daily Law Bulletin and arranged for delivery to him at\nthe facility.\n Miller never received his subscription. He instead learned\nthat the publication was deemed contraband because, accord-\ning to Assistant Chief of Corrections Chad Kolitwenzew,\n\fNo. 17-1507 3\n\n“[t]he Inmate Handbook states [the jail does] not allow news-\npapers.” Issues of the Law Bulletin, therefore, were intercepted\nevery day for ten months and disposed of by jail staff without\nany notice to Miller.\n The JCDC’s policy on inmate mail was not a model of clar-\nity during the relevant period. The jail did not maintain a\nwritten policy listing what items inmates were prohibited\nfrom receiving. Rather, and as best we can tell, the jail consid-\nered newspapers contraband because the Inmate Handbook\ndid not expressly say inmates could possess them. Jail officials\nviewed the Law Bulletin as a newspaper because (and appar-\nently only because) it was printed on newsprint.\n Adding to the confusion, however, is that during this same\nperiod the jail permitted inmates to receive personal\nsubscriptions to Prison Legal News. This was so even though\nPrison Legal News, just like the Law Bulletin, is printed on\nnewsprint. So, too, was Prison Legal News not listed as a\npermitted item in the JCDC Inmate Handbook.\n B\n In 2014, after learning that copies of the Law Bulletin had\nbeen delivered to the JCDC and filing multiple grievances\nwith the jail, Miller filed a pro se complaint alleging that the\njail’s disposal of the publication, especially with no notice to\nhim, violated the First Amendment and the Due Process\nClause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\n Upon screening Miller’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1915A, the district court determined that Miller stated a\ncolorable First Amendment claim against three jail officials\nand the Kankakee County Sheriff. Following discovery the\ndefendants moved for summary judgment. Although Miller’s\n\f4 No. 17-1507\n\nsuit focused narrowly on the JCDC’s prohibition of the Law\nBulletin—which he repeatedly stressed and explained was a\nlegal publication and not a daily newspaper akin to the\nChicago Tribune—the defendants’ motion instead asked the\ndistrict court to treat Miller’s claims as broadly challenging\nthe JCDC’s newspaper ban. They argued that safety and\nsecurity risks posed by excess paper in the jail warranted a\ntotal ban on newspapers, including the Law Bulletin.\n The district court accepted the defendants’ framing of the\nissue and granted their motion. Applying the four-factor test\nannounced in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the court con-\ncluded that the newspaper ban was permissible given the\njail’s security, safety, and staffing concerns. The summary\njudgment record, as the district court saw it, showed that in-\nmates had used newspapers to flood cells and conceal contra-\nband—circumstances justifying a categorical ban. The court\nalso found that the defendants provided evidence that allow-\ning inmates personal newspaper subscriptions “would un-\nnecessarily strain staff resources in monitoring the amount of\npaper within the facility and sorting the incoming mail.” The\npolicy was not an “exaggerated response to legitimate peno-\nlogical concerns,” the court continued, because the jail af-\nforded inmates alternative ways to stay current on the news\n(for example, by watching television) and to work on their le-\ngal cases by reading Prison Legal News and using the jail’s law\nlibrary.\n On appeal, and now represented by counsel, Miller re-\nnews his contention that the confiscation of the Law Bulletin\nviolated his rights under the First Amendment. He also ar-\ngues the district court committed error by altogether failing to\n\fNo. 17-1507 5\n\naddress, and perhaps implicitly rejecting, his due process\nclaim.\n II\n A\n The district court painted with much too broad a brush\nand resolved a case never brought by Joseph Miller. Miller is\na gifted writer and his pro se complaint, prepared in pencil on\nnotebook paper, was remarkable for its clarity and precision.\nHe alleged that the defendant jail officials violated his consti-\ntutional rights by confiscating not a newspaper of general cir-\nculation, but rather a legal publication, the Law Bulletin. He\nexplained that he needed the publication because the JCDC\nhad neither a law library nor any research materials concern-\ning federal case law.\n Miller took the same care in opposing the defendants’ mo-\ntion for summary judgment, emphasizing that permitting him\n(and other federal inmates housed in the Kankakee facility) to\nreceive the Law Bulletin (or another legal publication) would\nnot flood the facility with paper, overwhelm mailroom staff,\nor create excessive security risks. In plain and simple terms,\nMiller implored the district court to treat his claims for what\nthey were—a lawsuit challenging the JCDC’s prohibition and\nconfiscation of a legal publication—and not for what they\nwere not—a request to receive a newspaper.\n Though Miller may not have realized it, his submissions\nto the district court aligned perfectly with the precept that\nfederal courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, should strive\nto decide constitutional cases narrowly and refrain from an-\nswering questions broader than necessary to resolve the case\nor controversy before them. The symmetry between Miller’s\n\f6 No. 17-1507\n\nposition and the principle of narrow constitutional decision-\nmaking jumps off the pages of his submissions to the district\ncourt. And it is this exact principle that charts a straightfor-\nward course for resolving Miller’s claims.\n The resolution of Miller’s claims on summary judgment\ndid not require the district court to answer whether a jail’s\nblanket ban on newspapers offends the First Amendment.\nMiller’s counsel rightly observes that the trendline on that\nquestion favors Miller. But the defendants are equally right to\nobserve that the question entails complexity because some of\nthe pertinent precedent, including our prior decision in\nKincaid v. Rusk, 670 F.2d 737 (7th Cir. 1982), predates the\nSupreme Court’s decision in Turner. In Turner the Court\nmodified preexisting law by announcing a new four-factor\ntest for assessing prison regulations that impinge on inmates’\nconstitutional rights. See 482 U.S. at 89–91. There is no dispute\nthat the Turner test applies where, as here, a policy implicates\na prisoner’s First Amendment rights, including the right to\nread while detained. See King v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 415 F.3d\n634, 638 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Freedom of speech is not merely\nfreedom to speak; it is also freedom to read.”). And so too are\nthe defendants right to observe that a proper analysis of\nMiller’s claim would have to consider whether qualified\nimmunity shielded them from liability if the JCDC’s blanket\nnewspaper ban transgressed the First Amendment.\n Another factor counseling in favor of taking Miller’s claim\nas he pleaded it is that the Kankakee facility overhauled its\npublication policy in June 2015. The JCDC now supplies the\nfacility with multiple daily copies of USA Today and permits\ninmates to receive subscriptions to up to four magazines per\nmonth. This change suggests that broadly ruling on the\n\fNo. 17-1507 7\n\nconstitutionality of the JCDC’s prior policy was unnecessary.\nAnd this is particularly so given that just days after Miller\nfiled his complaint—seeking not only money damages but\nalso declaratory and injunctive relief—the district court\nlearned he was transferred to another facility, rendering his\nrequest for injunctive relief moot. Put differently, when faced\nwith a First Amendment challenge to an outdated policy\nbrought by an inmate no longer housed at the facility in ques-\ntion, the district court should have resolved the case on nar-\nrower grounds, focusing precisely on the case and contro-\nversy brought by Miller. See generally ISI Int’l v. Borden Ladner\nGervais LLP, 256 F.3d 548, 552 (7th Cir. 2001) (emphasizing\nthat “federal courts are supposed to do what they can to avoid\nmaking constitutional decisions, and strive doubly to avoid\nmaking unnecessary constitutional decisions”).\n The proper path was to answer the narrow and specific\nclaim advanced by Miller—whether the jail’s confiscation of\nhis subscription to the Law Bulletin violated the First Amend-\nment. See Hedgwood v. City of Eau Claire, 676 F.3d 600, 603 (7th\nCir. 2012) (explaining that principles of “judicial restraint”\ncounsel in favor of resolving “as-applied challenges before fa-\ncial ones in an effort to decide constitutional attacks on the\nnarrowest possible grounds and to avoid reaching unneces-\nsary constitutional issues”).\n B\n Similar considerations caution against us reaching the\nmerits of Miller’s First Amendment claim in the first instance.\nThe better approach is to allow the district court and parties\nthe initial opportunity to address the issues presented anew\nand through the narrower frame of how the Turner factors\n\f8 No. 17-1507\n\napply to the JCDC’s confiscation of Miller’s subscription to a\nlegal publication, the Law Bulletin.\n Suffice it for us to offer but a few observations relevant to\na narrowed consideration of the Turner factors. The district\ncourt’s initial assessment of Miller’s claim rooted itself in facts\nunsupported by the summary judgment record. For example,\nthe court assessed the second Turner factor (whether alterna-\ntive means of exercising the asserted right—here the right to\nreceive and read legal publications—remain available to the\ninmate) on the view that the JCDC had a law library with re-\nsources on federal case law available to federal inmates like\nMiller. The record shows otherwise. The JCDC had no law li-\nbrary, and while inmates had access to an electronic database\nwith Illinois legal resources, Miller contends that there was a\ndearth of material on federal law in the jail—a point that went\nuncontested by the defendants.\n On this same factor, it appears that the JCDC’s policy\n(throughout Miller’s detention) allowed inmates to receive\nsubscriptions to Prison Legal News. The district court viewed\nthis access as important without recognizing that the record\nleft unclear whether, contrary to the jail’s policy, inmates were\nin fact being allowed to receive the publication. Regardless, it\nis not enough to say, as the district court suggested, that one\nlegal publication is just like the next and thus Prison Legal\nNews sufficed to serve a federal inmate’s every legal need.\nWhat is more, the district court failed to recognize that Prison\nLegal News—just like the Law Bulletin—is published on news-\nprint, a fact casting at least some doubt on the JCDCʹs conten-\ntion that banning all newsprint publications was essential to\nprison safety, a consideration relevant to the first Turner fac-\ntor.\n\fNo. 17-1507 9\n\n On remand, the right analysis asks whether permitting in-\nmates to receive subscriptions to legal publications (subject to\nreasonable limitations) jeopardized institutional objectives to\nsuch an extent as to justify the JCDC’s confiscation of the Law\nBulletin. On this front we make three final observations. First,\nthe district court did not consider whether the JCDC’s change\nof policy in 2015—to allow inmates to receive up to four mag-\nazine subscriptions—warranted discounting the rationale\nsupporting the JCDC’s decision to ban the Law Bulletin (and,\nif so, to what degree) due to concerns associated with excess\npaper. See Turner, 482 U.S. at 89 (“[T]here must be a ‘valid,\nrational connection’ between the prison regulation and the le-\ngitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it.”)\n(quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984)).\n Second, the record on summary judgment contained very\nfew examples of any publications being used to create safety\nrisks within the facility. And none of the examples the defend-\nants did provide relate to newsprint publications. Though\nmindful that courts must afford substantial deference to\nprison administrators on matters of institutional security, see\nOverton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003), that latitude is not\nboundless: defendants still must present evidence “demon-\nstrating a specific security concern that bears a nexus to the\nprohibited conduct.” Riker v. Lemmon, 798 F.3d 546, 557 (7th\nCir. 2015).\n Third, we note based on the public record that the JCDC’s\nprohibition of the Law Bulletin seems in substantial tension, if\nnot direct conflict, with the County Jail Standards promul-\ngated by the State of Illinois. See Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20,\n§ 701.180 (providing that inmates in county facilities “may re-\nceive … periodicals subject to inspection and approval by jail\n\f10 No. 17-1507\n\npersonnel”). The record is silent as to whether the JCDC is a\nfacility subject to the County Jail Standards, and, if so, what\nspecific security concerns prevented the facility from adher-\ning to the regulation and allowing Miller to receive his sub-\nscription to the Law Bulletin. That the Jail Standards seem to\npermit inmates to receive all periodicals, while still ensuring\nprison safety, suggests that Kankakee’s prohibition of an even\nnarrower class of publications (specifically, legal publica-\ntions) was an exaggerated response to its proffered security\nconcerns, a consideration relevant to the entire Turner analy-\nsis. See Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528 (2006). This too war-\nrants consideration on remand.\n III\n We owe a final word to Miller’s procedural due process\nclaim. Miller alleged that jail officials confiscated and de-\nstroyed his copies of the Law Bulletin without any notice or\nopportunity for him to appeal this action. In his amended\ncomplaint, he expressly cast this allegation in terms of a vio-\nlation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\nThe district court, however, did not address this claim, per-\nhaps on the view that it was entirely duplicative of Miller’s\nFirst Amendment claim. But that is not so. Indeed, at a\nbroader level, the imperative of fair process may take on\nadded significance in the domain of free speech. See, e.g.,\nHenry P. Monaghan, First Amendment “Due Process,” 83 Harv.\nL. Rev. 518 (1970).\n Due process requires that the decision to censor inmate\nmail must be accompanied by “minimum procedural safe-\nguards.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417 (1974), over-\nruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401\n(1989); see also Perry v. Secʹy, Fla. Depʹt of Corr., 664 F.3d 1359,\n\fNo. 17-1507 11\n\n1368 (11th Cir. 2011) (applying this standard to a due process\nclaim). This standard has generally required officials to pro-\nvide inmates with notice and an opportunity to object to a\nconfiscation of their mail. See Martinez, 416 U.S. at 418. Miller\ndeserves the opportunity on remand to have this claim con-\nsidered under these standards.\n For these reasons, we VACATE the judgment of the district\ncourt and REMAND for further proceedings.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Joseph Miller v. Michael Downey\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-1507\\nJOSEPH MILLER,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nMICHAEL DOWNEY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Central District of Illinois.\\n No. 2:14-cv-2211 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, ROVNER, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Between 2012 and 2013, the Jerome\\nCombs Detention Center in Kankakee, Illinois, prohibited\\ninmates from receiving any newspapers. While awaiting trial\\non bank robbery charges, Joseph Miller’s family bought him\\na $279 subscription to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin to help\\nhim with his case. Deeming the Law Bulletin a newspaper, jail\\nofficials precluded Miller from receiving it. Miller responded\\nwith a lawsuit challenging the jail’s prohibition and\\n\\f2 No. 17-1507\\n\\nconfiscation of the publication and seeking to recover the\\nsubscription fee. The district court construed the lawsuit as\\nrequiring it to answer, not the narrow question of whether\\nMiller had a right to receive a legal publication like the Law\\nBulletin, but instead the broader question of whether the jail’s\\nban on all newspapers offended the First Amendment. In the\\nend, the district court upheld the newspaper ban and\\nawarded summary judgment to the defendant jail officials.\\nBecause the district court erred in reaching and resolving such\\na broad constitutional question—and the record was not fully\\ndeveloped as it pertains to the jail’s restriction on legal\\npublications—we vacate the district court’s judgment and\\nremand for further proceedings.\\n I\\n A\\n Pursuant to an agreement between the United States\\nMarshals Service and the Kankakee County Sheriff’s Office,\\nJoseph Miller was detained at the Jerome Combs Detention\\nCenter or JCDC from February 2012 to August 2014 while\\nawaiting trial and sentencing on federal charges. Because the\\njail did not provide inmates access to federal case law, Miller,\\na federal prisoner, asked his family to buy him a subscription\\nto a legal publication covering federal criminal law. He\\nwanted to better understand his case and assist with his\\ndefense, so his family ordered a one-year subscription to the\\nChicago Daily Law Bulletin and arranged for delivery to him at\\nthe facility.\\n Miller never received his subscription. He instead learned\\nthat the publication was deemed contraband because, accord-\\ning to Assistant Chief of Corrections Chad Kolitwenzew,\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 3\\n\\n“[t]he Inmate Handbook states [the jail does] not allow news-\\npapers.” Issues of the Law Bulletin, therefore, were intercepted\\nevery day for ten months and disposed of by jail staff without\\nany notice to Miller.\\n The JCDC’s policy on inmate mail was not a model of clar-\\nity during the relevant period. The jail did not maintain a\\nwritten policy listing what items inmates were prohibited\\nfrom receiving. Rather, and as best we can tell, the jail consid-\\nered newspapers contraband because the Inmate Handbook\\ndid not expressly say inmates could possess them. Jail officials\\nviewed the Law Bulletin as a newspaper because (and appar-\\nently only because) it was printed on newsprint.\\n Adding to the confusion, however, is that during this same\\nperiod the jail permitted inmates to receive personal\\nsubscriptions to Prison Legal News. This was so even though\\nPrison Legal News, just like the Law Bulletin, is printed on\\nnewsprint. So, too, was Prison Legal News not listed as a\\npermitted item in the JCDC Inmate Handbook.\\n B\\n In 2014, after learning that copies of the Law Bulletin had\\nbeen delivered to the JCDC and filing multiple grievances\\nwith the jail, Miller filed a pro se complaint alleging that the\\njail’s disposal of the publication, especially with no notice to\\nhim, violated the First Amendment and the Due Process\\nClause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\\n Upon screening Miller’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1915A, the district court determined that Miller stated a\\ncolorable First Amendment claim against three jail officials\\nand the Kankakee County Sheriff. Following discovery the\\ndefendants moved for summary judgment. Although Miller’s\\n\\f4 No. 17-1507\\n\\nsuit focused narrowly on the JCDC’s prohibition of the Law\\nBulletin—which he repeatedly stressed and explained was a\\nlegal publication and not a daily newspaper akin to the\\nChicago Tribune—the defendants’ motion instead asked the\\ndistrict court to treat Miller’s claims as broadly challenging\\nthe JCDC’s newspaper ban. They argued that safety and\\nsecurity risks posed by excess paper in the jail warranted a\\ntotal ban on newspapers, including the Law Bulletin.\\n The district court accepted the defendants’ framing of the\\nissue and granted their motion. Applying the four-factor test\\nannounced in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the court con-\\ncluded that the newspaper ban was permissible given the\\njail’s security, safety, and staffing concerns. The summary\\njudgment record, as the district court saw it, showed that in-\\nmates had used newspapers to flood cells and conceal contra-\\nband—circumstances justifying a categorical ban. The court\\nalso found that the defendants provided evidence that allow-\\ning inmates personal newspaper subscriptions “would un-\\nnecessarily strain staff resources in monitoring the amount of\\npaper within the facility and sorting the incoming mail.” The\\npolicy was not an “exaggerated response to legitimate peno-\\nlogical concerns,” the court continued, because the jail af-\\nforded inmates alternative ways to stay current on the news\\n(for example, by watching television) and to work on their le-\\ngal cases by reading Prison Legal News and using the jail’s law\\nlibrary.\\n On appeal, and now represented by counsel, Miller re-\\nnews his contention that the confiscation of the Law Bulletin\\nviolated his rights under the First Amendment. He also ar-\\ngues the district court committed error by altogether failing to\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 5\\n\\naddress, and perhaps implicitly rejecting, his due process\\nclaim.\\n II\\n A\\n The district court painted with much too broad a brush\\nand resolved a case never brought by Joseph Miller. Miller is\\na gifted writer and his pro se complaint, prepared in pencil on\\nnotebook paper, was remarkable for its clarity and precision.\\nHe alleged that the defendant jail officials violated his consti-\\ntutional rights by confiscating not a newspaper of general cir-\\nculation, but rather a legal publication, the Law Bulletin. He\\nexplained that he needed the publication because the JCDC\\nhad neither a law library nor any research materials concern-\\ning federal case law.\\n Miller took the same care in opposing the defendants’ mo-\\ntion for summary judgment, emphasizing that permitting him\\n(and other federal inmates housed in the Kankakee facility) to\\nreceive the Law Bulletin (or another legal publication) would\\nnot flood the facility with paper, overwhelm mailroom staff,\\nor create excessive security risks. In plain and simple terms,\\nMiller implored the district court to treat his claims for what\\nthey were—a lawsuit challenging the JCDC’s prohibition and\\nconfiscation of a legal publication—and not for what they\\nwere not—a request to receive a newspaper.\\n Though Miller may not have realized it, his submissions\\nto the district court aligned perfectly with the precept that\\nfederal courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, should strive\\nto decide constitutional cases narrowly and refrain from an-\\nswering questions broader than necessary to resolve the case\\nor controversy before them. The symmetry between Miller’s\\n\\f6 No. 17-1507\\n\\nposition and the principle of narrow constitutional decision-\\nmaking jumps off the pages of his submissions to the district\\ncourt. And it is this exact principle that charts a straightfor-\\nward course for resolving Miller’s claims.\\n The resolution of Miller’s claims on summary judgment\\ndid not require the district court to answer whether a jail’s\\nblanket ban on newspapers offends the First Amendment.\\nMiller’s counsel rightly observes that the trendline on that\\nquestion favors Miller. But the defendants are equally right to\\nobserve that the question entails complexity because some of\\nthe pertinent precedent, including our prior decision in\\nKincaid v. Rusk, 670 F.2d 737 (7th Cir. 1982), predates the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Turner. In Turner the Court\\nmodified preexisting law by announcing a new four-factor\\ntest for assessing prison regulations that impinge on inmates’\\nconstitutional rights. See 482 U.S. at 89–91. There is no dispute\\nthat the Turner test applies where, as here, a policy implicates\\na prisoner’s First Amendment rights, including the right to\\nread while detained. See King v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 415 F.3d\\n634, 638 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Freedom of speech is not merely\\nfreedom to speak; it is also freedom to read.”). And so too are\\nthe defendants right to observe that a proper analysis of\\nMiller’s claim would have to consider whether qualified\\nimmunity shielded them from liability if the JCDC’s blanket\\nnewspaper ban transgressed the First Amendment.\\n Another factor counseling in favor of taking Miller’s claim\\nas he pleaded it is that the Kankakee facility overhauled its\\npublication policy in June 2015. The JCDC now supplies the\\nfacility with multiple daily copies of USA Today and permits\\ninmates to receive subscriptions to up to four magazines per\\nmonth. This change suggests that broadly ruling on the\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 7\\n\\nconstitutionality of the JCDC’s prior policy was unnecessary.\\nAnd this is particularly so given that just days after Miller\\nfiled his complaint—seeking not only money damages but\\nalso declaratory and injunctive relief—the district court\\nlearned he was transferred to another facility, rendering his\\nrequest for injunctive relief moot. Put differently, when faced\\nwith a First Amendment challenge to an outdated policy\\nbrought by an inmate no longer housed at the facility in ques-\\ntion, the district court should have resolved the case on nar-\\nrower grounds, focusing precisely on the case and contro-\\nversy brought by Miller. See generally ISI Int’l v. Borden Ladner\\nGervais LLP, 256 F.3d 548, 552 (7th Cir. 2001) (emphasizing\\nthat “federal courts are supposed to do what they can to avoid\\nmaking constitutional decisions, and strive doubly to avoid\\nmaking unnecessary constitutional decisions”).\\n The proper path was to answer the narrow and specific\\nclaim advanced by Miller—whether the jail’s confiscation of\\nhis subscription to the Law Bulletin violated the First Amend-\\nment. See Hedgwood v. City of Eau Claire, 676 F.3d 600, 603 (7th\\nCir. 2012) (explaining that principles of “judicial restraint”\\ncounsel in favor of resolving “as-applied challenges before fa-\\ncial ones in an effort to decide constitutional attacks on the\\nnarrowest possible grounds and to avoid reaching unneces-\\nsary constitutional issues”).\\n B\\n Similar considerations caution against us reaching the\\nmerits of Miller’s First Amendment claim in the first instance.\\nThe better approach is to allow the district court and parties\\nthe initial opportunity to address the issues presented anew\\nand through the narrower frame of how the Turner factors\\n\\f8 No. 17-1507\\n\\napply to the JCDC’s confiscation of Miller’s subscription to a\\nlegal publication, the Law Bulletin.\\n Suffice it for us to offer but a few observations relevant to\\na narrowed consideration of the Turner factors. The district\\ncourt’s initial assessment of Miller’s claim rooted itself in facts\\nunsupported by the summary judgment record. For example,\\nthe court assessed the second Turner factor (whether alterna-\\ntive means of exercising the asserted right—here the right to\\nreceive and read legal publications—remain available to the\\ninmate) on the view that the JCDC had a law library with re-\\nsources on federal case law available to federal inmates like\\nMiller. The record shows otherwise. The JCDC had no law li-\\nbrary, and while inmates had access to an electronic database\\nwith Illinois legal resources, Miller contends that there was a\\ndearth of material on federal law in the jail—a point that went\\nuncontested by the defendants.\\n On this same factor, it appears that the JCDC’s policy\\n(throughout Miller’s detention) allowed inmates to receive\\nsubscriptions to Prison Legal News. The district court viewed\\nthis access as important without recognizing that the record\\nleft unclear whether, contrary to the jail’s policy, inmates were\\nin fact being allowed to receive the publication. Regardless, it\\nis not enough to say, as the district court suggested, that one\\nlegal publication is just like the next and thus Prison Legal\\nNews sufficed to serve a federal inmate’s every legal need.\\nWhat is more, the district court failed to recognize that Prison\\nLegal News—just like the Law Bulletin—is published on news-\\nprint, a fact casting at least some doubt on the JCDCʹs conten-\\ntion that banning all newsprint publications was essential to\\nprison safety, a consideration relevant to the first Turner fac-\\ntor.\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 9\\n\\n On remand, the right analysis asks whether permitting in-\\nmates to receive subscriptions to legal publications (subject to\\nreasonable limitations) jeopardized institutional objectives to\\nsuch an extent as to justify the JCDC’s confiscation of the Law\\nBulletin. On this front we make three final observations. First,\\nthe district court did not consider whether the JCDC’s change\\nof policy in 2015—to allow inmates to receive up to four mag-\\nazine subscriptions—warranted discounting the rationale\\nsupporting the JCDC’s decision to ban the Law Bulletin (and,\\nif so, to what degree) due to concerns associated with excess\\npaper. See Turner, 482 U.S. at 89 (“[T]here must be a ‘valid,\\nrational connection’ between the prison regulation and the le-\\ngitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it.”)\\n(quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984)).\\n Second, the record on summary judgment contained very\\nfew examples of any publications being used to create safety\\nrisks within the facility. And none of the examples the defend-\\nants did provide relate to newsprint publications. Though\\nmindful that courts must afford substantial deference to\\nprison administrators on matters of institutional security, see\\nOverton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003), that latitude is not\\nboundless: defendants still must present evidence “demon-\\nstrating a specific security concern that bears a nexus to the\\nprohibited conduct.” Riker v. Lemmon, 798 F.3d 546, 557 (7th\\nCir. 2015).\\n Third, we note based on the public record that the JCDC’s\\nprohibition of the Law Bulletin seems in substantial tension, if\\nnot direct conflict, with the County Jail Standards promul-\\ngated by the State of Illinois. See Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20,\\n§ 701.180 (providing that inmates in county facilities “may re-\\nceive … periodicals subject to inspection and approval by jail\\n\\f10 No. 17-1507\\n\\npersonnel”). The record is silent as to whether the JCDC is a\\nfacility subject to the County Jail Standards, and, if so, what\\nspecific security concerns prevented the facility from adher-\\ning to the regulation and allowing Miller to receive his sub-\\nscription to the Law Bulletin. That the Jail Standards seem to\\npermit inmates to receive all periodicals, while still ensuring\\nprison safety, suggests that Kankakee’s prohibition of an even\\nnarrower class of publications (specifically, legal publica-\\ntions) was an exaggerated response to its proffered security\\nconcerns, a consideration relevant to the entire Turner analy-\\nsis. See Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528 (2006). This too war-\\nrants consideration on remand.\\n III\\n We owe a final word to Miller’s procedural due process\\nclaim. Miller alleged that jail officials confiscated and de-\\nstroyed his copies of the Law Bulletin without any notice or\\nopportunity for him to appeal this action. In his amended\\ncomplaint, he expressly cast this allegation in terms of a vio-\\nlation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\\nThe district court, however, did not address this claim, per-\\nhaps on the view that it was entirely duplicative of Miller’s\\nFirst Amendment claim. But that is not so. Indeed, at a\\nbroader level, the imperative of fair process may take on\\nadded significance in the domain of free speech. See, e.g.,\\nHenry P. Monaghan, First Amendment “Due Process,” 83 Harv.\\nL. Rev. 518 (1970).\\n Due process requires that the decision to censor inmate\\nmail must be accompanied by “minimum procedural safe-\\nguards.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417 (1974), over-\\nruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401\\n(1989); see also Perry v. Secʹy, Fla. Depʹt of Corr., 664 F.3d 1359,\\n\\fNo. 17-1507 11\\n\\n1368 (11th Cir. 2011) (applying this standard to a due process\\nclaim). This standard has generally required officials to pro-\\nvide inmates with notice and an opportunity to object to a\\nconfiscation of their mail. See Martinez, 416 U.S. at 418. Miller\\ndeserves the opportunity on remand to have this claim con-\\nsidered under these standards.\\n For these reasons, we VACATE the judgment of the district\\ncourt and REMAND for further proceedings.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":689,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":8443876,"string":"8,443,876"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Ronnie L. WINSTED, Jr. v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Winsted v. Berryhill"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 18-2228"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Brennan, Manion, Scudder\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415305/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443876/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Ronnie L. WINSTED, Jr. v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Ronnie L. WINSTED, Jr. v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":690,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":8443877,"string":"8,443,877"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Linda REED v. COLUMBIA ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hosp."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 17-1469"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Easterbrook, Hamilton, Rovner\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415306/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443877/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Linda REED v. COLUMBIA ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Linda REED v. COLUMBIA ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":691,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":8443996,"string":"8,443,996"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Ronnie L. WINSTED, Jr. v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Winsted v. Berryhill"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 18-2228"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Brennan, Manion, Scudder\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415430/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443996/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Ronnie L. WINSTED, Jr. v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Ronnie L. WINSTED, Jr. v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":692,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589749,"string":"4,589,749"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Danny J. RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2229"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2229\\nDANNY J. RAY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL,\\nActing Commissioner of Social Security,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division\\n No. 1:17-cv-01322 — Matthew P. Brookman, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n PER CURIAM. Danny Ray applied for Supplemental Secu-\\nrity Income and Disability Insurance Benefits based on a host\\nof physical disorders and mental conditions. An administra-\\ntive law judge found that Ray was severely impaired by most\\nof his physical conditions, but she denied benefits after find-\\ning that he could perform his past relevant work as a school\\n\\f2 No. 18-2229\\n\\nbus monitor. Ray challenges that finding, arguing that the ALJ\\nerroneously discredited him, failed to treat his prior job as\\n“composite,” and improperly assessed his functional abilities\\ncompared to the job requirements for a bus monitor in the\\ngeneral economy. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s deci-\\nsion. We agree with Ray and vacate the judgment.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Ray lives with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney dis-\\nease, degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and depression.\\nWhen his conditions worsened, he began working gradually\\neasier jobs, from janitor to forklift operator to bus monitor for\\nchildren with special needs, until eventually he gave up his\\nemployment entirely. As a bus monitor, he would lift disa-\\nbled children into their seats on the bus, strap down wheel-\\nchairs, and monitor the children’s behavior. He ultimately\\nquit because it was too painful for his hands, feet, and hips.\\n Ray receives medical care for his physical impairments but\\nhas been noncompliant with some treatments, mostly in rela-\\ntion to his diabetes. He struggles to remember to test his\\nblood-glucose levels, eat healthfully, and take insulin. Doc-\\ntors who treat Ray’s back condition also have noted that he\\ntakes more pain medication than the prescribed amount.\\n In November 2013, Ray applied for social security bene-\\nfits. During the review process, two consulting state-agency\\npsychologists and an examining clinical psychologist,\\nDr. Zera, evaluated his functioning. The consulting psycholo-\\ngists both concluded that Ray is moderately limited in his\\nability to maintain attention and concentration for extended\\nperiods but is not significantly limited in any other aspect of\\nconcentration, persistence, or pace. Dr. Zera determined that\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 3\\n\\nRay has an anxiety disorder and learning disorder, noting his\\n“difficulty reading and poor math skills.” Ray also met with\\nDr. Fish, an agency physician, who determined that Ray’s ma-\\njor functional impairment is exertional tolerance. Dr. Fish\\nnoted a positive result from a supine straight-leg test, which\\nreflects lumbar nerve root compression, though the less-sen-\\nsitive seated test was negative.1\\n The agency denied Ray’s applications initially and upon\\nreconsideration, and his case proceeded to a hearing with an\\nALJ. At the hearing, Ray testified—and his mother and girl-\\nfriend corroborated with written statements—that his daily\\nactivities include taking his medication, making himself three\\nsimple meals, watching television, using the dishwasher, and\\nshowering (while using a shower seat). Outside of these tasks,\\nhe sits and watches television. Ray occasionally does laundry\\nif reminded, and he had the laundry machines moved from\\nthe basement to the first floor of his house because the stairs\\nwere difficult for him. Once per week, he goes grocery shop-\\nping with the assistance of an electric cart. When he did not\\nhave family to drive him, the hospital provided him a bus\\npass because he is physically incapable of walking home.\\n In addition to his physical impairments, Ray has limited\\nintellect. He testified that he completed eight grades of special\\neducation, but he struggles to read and write. Although he\\nwill occasionally purchase a newspaper, it takes time for him\\nto make sense of what he sees. Because of his limitations, his\\n\\n\\n 1 See Alon Rabin, et al., The Sensitivity of the Seated Straight-Leg Raise\\nTest Compared with the Supine Straight-Leg Raise Test in Patients Presenting\\nwith Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Lumbar Nerve Root Compression,\\n88 PHYSICAL MED. & REHAB. 840, 842 (2007).\\n\\f4 No. 18-2229\\n\\nmother or girlfriend must write his checks and complete his\\npaperwork.\\n In her decision, the ALJ analyzed Ray’s application based\\non the five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and\\nfound him not disabled. She determined that he is not en-\\ngaged in substantial gainful employment (step one) and that\\nhe has severe impairments of diabetes mellitus, obesity, de-\\ngenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, coronary ar-\\ntery disease, kidney disease, hypertension, and a history of\\natrial fibrillation (step two). But his impairments, she con-\\ncluded, do not meet a listing (step three).\\n The ALJ determined that Ray has the residual functional\\ncapacity (“RFC”) to perform light work (lifting ten to twenty\\npounds) and to stand or walk for six hours. She also found\\nthat he is able to “understand, remember, and carry out semi-\\nskilled tasks” and “attend to tasks for a sufficient period in\\norder to complete tasks.” Regarding Ray’s limitations, the\\nALJ found him only “partially credible,” largely based on the\\nnotion that, if his symptoms were as severe as alleged, his\\ndaily activities would be more restricted and he would be\\nmore compliant with his prescribed treatments.\\n The ALJ presented Ray’s RFC to the vocational expert,\\nwho concluded that Ray could work as a school bus moni-\\ntor—not as he had performed the job, but as it is performed\\nin the national economy. At the hearing, Ray questioned the\\nvocational expert about the required level of language devel-\\nopment for that position. The vocational expert confirmed\\nthat a requirement of the job, as it is generally performed, is\\nthe ability to “write compound and complex sentences, using\\ncursive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjec-\\ntives and adverbs.”\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 5\\n\\n At the hearing and in a supplemental brief, Ray argued\\nthat his previous position as a bus monitor for disabled\\nschoolchildren was a composite job—that is, one that com-\\nbines “significant elements of two or more occupations and,\\nas such, ha[s] no counterpart in the [Dictionary of Occupa-\\ntional Titles],” Social Security Ruling 82-61. His job, Ray ar-\\ngued, involved substantial activities from both the school bus\\nmonitor and child care attendant positions as they are de-\\nscribed in the DOT. Ray questioned the vocational expert on\\nthis subject, but the testimony is transcribed as “inaudible”\\nduring the key responses, and Ray and the agency represent\\nthose portions differently.\\n In her written decision, however, the ALJ dismissed Ray’s\\nargument about composite jobs as “unpersuasive and unsup-\\nported” and concluded that Ray could be a bus monitor as\\nthat job is generally performed. She did not discuss the undis-\\nputed language-development requirements for that position.\\nUltimately, based on the vocational expert’s testimony that\\nRay could perform his past relevant work, the ALJ concluded\\nthat he is not disabled.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We uphold an ALJ’s decision only if substantial evidence\\nfrom the record supports her determination. Lanigan v. Ber-\\nryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Ray raises four challenges in this appeal: (1) the ALJ erred\\nin evaluating his daily activities and medical reports, making\\nher credibility determination patently wrong; (2) the ALJ\\nerred in concluding that he could perform his past relevant\\nwork because his bus-monitor job was a composite job, which\\nprecludes a finding at step four; (3) the ALJ erred in finding\\n\\f6 No. 18-2229\\n\\nthat he could do the bus-monitor job as generally performed\\nbecause he does not meet the necessary General Educational\\nDevelopment Level; and (4) the ALJ erred in assessing his\\nmental impairments by finding them not severe and by not\\nincluding any limitations on concentration, persistence, and\\npace in his RFC.\\n With respect to the adverse credibility determination, this\\nis the rare case in which the claimant can overcome the “con-\\nsiderable deference” we afford such findings unless they are\\n“patently wrong,” Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir.\\n2009). Specifically, the ALJ erroneously evaluated Ray’s\\nsymptoms and daily activities, misinterpreted medical evi-\\ndence, and failed to ask why he skipped some appointments.\\n In assessing Ray’s back and hip pain, the ALJ acknowl-\\nedged that Ray had a herniating disc, degenerative disc and\\njoint disease of the lower lumber spine, a herniated nucleus\\npulpous, and chronic pain syndrome. But to support her de-\\ntermination that these impairments “are not as limiting as he\\nalleged,” she cited irrelevant records from treatment he re-\\nceived for a staph infection and she noted that his extremities\\nwere not fractured, tender, or swollen. The connection be-\\ntween those characteristics and Ray’s alleged pain and re-\\nstricted mobility is nowhere explained. She also mischaracter-\\nized Dr. Fish’s report, writing that the straight-leg raise test\\nwas negative when the opposite was true.\\n The ALJ also improperly emphasized Ray’s lack of follow-\\nup on a recommended spine evaluation and his difficulty\\nwith medication compliance. Within five years, Ray missed\\ntwo follow-up appointments, one for his heart and one for his\\nspine. When the ALJ asked him about the missed cardiology\\nappointment, he explained that he was uninsured at the time\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 7\\n\\nand could not afford it. Although the record showed that Ray\\nhad repeatedly lost his health insurance, the ALJ did not ask\\nhim about his missed spine appointment and instead as-\\nsumed that he did not attend because his symptoms were not\\nserious. That was reversible error; an ALJ must not draw in-\\nferences about a claimant’s lack of treatment without explor-\\ning the reasons for the inaction. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d\\n834, 840 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the ALJ bolstered her pre-\\nsumption with evidence of Ray’s difficulty with medication\\ncompliance, even though, with respect to his pain (as opposed\\nto his diabetes), those medical records point to Ray’s credibil-\\nity. Ray’s “noncompliance” with his musculoskeletal treat-\\nment stemmed from taking pain medication too frequently,\\nwhich does not support the ALJ’s inference that he was exag-\\ngerating his pain.\\n The ALJ also overemphasized Ray’s daily living activities.\\nThe only evidence of those activities comes from Ray’s testi-\\nmony (which apparently the ALJ credited in this aspect) and\\nhis family’s, and it shows that the sum of Ray’s daily routine\\ninvolves showering while seated, fixing simple meals, and us-\\ning the dishwasher. In between these activities, he sits and\\nwatches television. He could not walk even two hours home\\nfrom the hospital, a stark contrast to the ALJ’s finding that he\\ncan stand or walk six hours every day. Ray’s minimal daily\\nactivities do not support the ALJ’s finding that he exaggerated\\nhis symptoms, nor do they support the ultimate RFC.\\nSee Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000). Although\\nthe ALJ credited him with caring for his son, his son is an\\nadult, and no evidence reflects the type of “care” that Ray\\nsupposedly provided. Further, the struggle of living with his\\nson at one point sent Ray into a suicidal decompensation.\\n\\f8 No. 18-2229\\n\\n Ray is also correct that the ALJ made two technical errors\\nat step four that led to the unsupportable conclusion that he\\ncould perform his past relevant work as a bus monitor as that\\nposition exists in the national economy. First, the ALJ con-\\ncluded that Ray’s former position was not a “composite” job\\nand, therefore, that it could be assessed with reference to the\\nDictionary of Occupational Titles. A claimant is not disabled\\nif he can do his past relevant work either in the manner he\\nperformed it before the impairment or in the manner it is gen-\\nerally performed in the national economy. See Getch v. Astrue,\\n539 F.3d 473, 482 (7th Cir. 2008). But if the prior position was\\na composite job, then the ALJ may not reference it when de-\\ntermining whether a claimant can perform his past job as it is\\ngenerally performed. See Programs Operation Manual System\\nDI 25005.020; see also Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.\\nv. Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003) (POMS serve as guidance\\nand “warrant respect”); Cannon v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 970, 975\\n(7th Cir. 2000) (same).\\n Ray argues that his prior job was a composite job that com-\\nbined elements of the school bus monitor and school child-\\ncare attendant positions. He cites the vocational expert’s tes-\\ntimony to support his position, asserting that the expert testi-\\nfied that his bus monitor position was a composite job. The\\nagency, for its part, asserts that the expert testified to the op-\\nposite. Because key parts of the vocational expert’s testimony\\nare marked as “[inaudible],” his opinion is not clear. But a re-\\nview of the duties of a school child-care attendant bolsters\\nRay’s point:\\n Attends to personal needs of handicapped children\\n while in school to receive specialized academic and\\n physical training: Wheels handicapped children to\\n classes, lunchrooms, treatment rooms, and other\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 9\\n\\n areas of building. Secures children in equipment, such\\n as chairs, slings, or stretchers, and places or hoists\\n children into baths or pools. Monitors children using\\n life support equipment to detect indications of mal-\\n functioning of equipment and calls for medical as-\\n sistance when needed. Helps children to walk, board\\n buses, put on prosthetic appliances, eat, dress, bathe,\\n and perform other physical activities as their needs\\n require.\\nU.S. Dep’t of Lab., 1 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 258\\n(4th ed. 1991) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the du-\\nties of a school bus monitor are:\\n Monitors conduct of students on school bus to main-\\n tain discipline and safety: Directs loading of stu-\\n dents on bus to prevent congestion and unsafe con-\\n ditions. Rides school bus to prevent altercations be-\\n tween students and damage to bus. Participates in\\n school bus safety drills. May disembark from school\\n bus at railroad crossings and clear bus across tracks.\\nId. at 269.\\n Here, the ALJ concluded that Ray’s previous bus-monitor\\njob was not a composite job because his work matched the\\nDOT description “in all but the exertional requirements.” But\\nRay’s testimony (the only evidence of his job duties) demon-\\nstrates that as a bus monitor he performed significant ele-\\nments of the childcare-attendant job, like assisting the stu-\\ndents in boarding buses and securing them in their equipment\\nand chairs. The DOT description of the bus-monitor job does\\nnot include these duties, and the vocational expert’s testi-\\nmony is ambiguous. Thus, substantial evidence does not sup-\\nport the ALJ’s conclusion that Ray’s previous job was not a\\ncomposite job.\\n\\f10 No. 18-2229\\n\\n Relatedly, Ray argues that the ALJ erred further by con-\\ncluding that he could work as a bus monitor as the job is gen-\\nerally performed despite his lacking the necessary General\\nEducational Development Level for that job. The bus-monitor\\nposition requires at least a Language Development Level 2,\\nwhich expects that employees will be able to, among other\\nthings, “[w]rite compound and complex sentences, using cur-\\nsive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjectives\\nand adverbs”; “[r]ead adventure stories and comic books,\\nlooking up unfamiliar words in dictionary for meaning,\\nspelling, and pronunciation”; and “[r]ead instructions for as-\\nsembling model cars and airplanes.” U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 2 Dic-\\ntionary of Occupational Titles 1011 (4th ed. 1991). No evi-\\ndence supports the ALJ’s implied finding that Ray has these\\nskills.\\n To the contrary, Ray testified that he does not fill out his\\nown checks or paperwork because he misspells words and\\nthat he can barely read a newspaper article, a limitation con-\\nfirmed in Dr. Zera’s evaluation. When a vocational expert’s\\ntestimony that a claimant can perform a job conflicts with the\\nclaimant’s ability to meet the job’s listed requirements in the\\nDOT, then the ALJ must resolve that conflict before relying on\\nthe testimony to support her disability findings. See Social Se-\\ncurity Ruling 00-4p; Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir.\\n2016); Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). The\\nALJ’s failure to do that here, along with the other errors at\\nstep four, warrants remand. See Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672,\\n678 (7th Cir. 2009) (cumulative effect of multiple errors war-\\nranted remand).\\n Finally, Ray argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his\\nmental limitations, first by finding them not severe at step two\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 11\\n\\nand later by not including any limitations on concentration,\\npersistence, and pace in the RFC. To some extent, Ray is mis-\\ntaken. Step two is merely a threshold inquiry; so long as one\\nof a claimant’s limitations is found to be severe, error at that\\nstep is harmless. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.\\n2012). Either way, the ALJ must later consider the limitations\\nimposed by all impairments, severe and non-severe. 20 C.F.R.\\n§ 404.1523; Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 423 (7th Cir. 2010).\\nNevertheless, the ALJ based the RFC on her flawed credibility\\nfinding, which led her to discredit the opinions of the two\\nagency experts who concluded that Ray had a severe mental\\nimpairment. Therefore, the ALJ will have to revisit her assess-\\nment of Ray’s mental impairments in any case.\\n Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND to\\nthe district court with instructions to remand the case to the\\nagency for further proceedings.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4367002/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589749/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Danny J. RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2229\nDANNY J. RAY,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL,\nActing Commissioner of Social Security,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division\n No. 1:17-cv-01322 — Matthew P. Brookman, Magistrate Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit\nJudges.\n PER CURIAM. Danny Ray applied for Supplemental Secu-\nrity Income and Disability Insurance Benefits based on a host\nof physical disorders and mental conditions. An administra-\ntive law judge found that Ray was severely impaired by most\nof his physical conditions, but she denied benefits after find-\ning that he could perform his past relevant work as a school\n\f2 No. 18-2229\n\nbus monitor. Ray challenges that finding, arguing that the ALJ\nerroneously discredited him, failed to treat his prior job as\n“composite,” and improperly assessed his functional abilities\ncompared to the job requirements for a bus monitor in the\ngeneral economy. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s deci-\nsion. We agree with Ray and vacate the judgment.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Ray lives with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney dis-\nease, degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and depression.\nWhen his conditions worsened, he began working gradually\neasier jobs, from janitor to forklift operator to bus monitor for\nchildren with special needs, until eventually he gave up his\nemployment entirely. As a bus monitor, he would lift disa-\nbled children into their seats on the bus, strap down wheel-\nchairs, and monitor the children’s behavior. He ultimately\nquit because it was too painful for his hands, feet, and hips.\n Ray receives medical care for his physical impairments but\nhas been noncompliant with some treatments, mostly in rela-\ntion to his diabetes. He struggles to remember to test his\nblood-glucose levels, eat healthfully, and take insulin. Doc-\ntors who treat Ray’s back condition also have noted that he\ntakes more pain medication than the prescribed amount.\n In November 2013, Ray applied for social security bene-\nfits. During the review process, two consulting state-agency\npsychologists and an examining clinical psychologist,\nDr. Zera, evaluated his functioning. The consulting psycholo-\ngists both concluded that Ray is moderately limited in his\nability to maintain attention and concentration for extended\nperiods but is not significantly limited in any other aspect of\nconcentration, persistence, or pace. Dr. Zera determined that\n\fNo. 18-2229 3\n\nRay has an anxiety disorder and learning disorder, noting his\n“difficulty reading and poor math skills.” Ray also met with\nDr. Fish, an agency physician, who determined that Ray’s ma-\njor functional impairment is exertional tolerance. Dr. Fish\nnoted a positive result from a supine straight-leg test, which\nreflects lumbar nerve root compression, though the less-sen-\nsitive seated test was negative.1\n The agency denied Ray’s applications initially and upon\nreconsideration, and his case proceeded to a hearing with an\nALJ. At the hearing, Ray testified—and his mother and girl-\nfriend corroborated with written statements—that his daily\nactivities include taking his medication, making himself three\nsimple meals, watching television, using the dishwasher, and\nshowering (while using a shower seat). Outside of these tasks,\nhe sits and watches television. Ray occasionally does laundry\nif reminded, and he had the laundry machines moved from\nthe basement to the first floor of his house because the stairs\nwere difficult for him. Once per week, he goes grocery shop-\nping with the assistance of an electric cart. When he did not\nhave family to drive him, the hospital provided him a bus\npass because he is physically incapable of walking home.\n In addition to his physical impairments, Ray has limited\nintellect. He testified that he completed eight grades of special\neducation, but he struggles to read and write. Although he\nwill occasionally purchase a newspaper, it takes time for him\nto make sense of what he sees. Because of his limitations, his\n\n\n 1 See Alon Rabin, et al., The Sensitivity of the Seated Straight-Leg Raise\nTest Compared with the Supine Straight-Leg Raise Test in Patients Presenting\nwith Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Lumbar Nerve Root Compression,\n88 PHYSICAL MED. & REHAB. 840, 842 (2007).\n\f4 No. 18-2229\n\nmother or girlfriend must write his checks and complete his\npaperwork.\n In her decision, the ALJ analyzed Ray’s application based\non the five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and\nfound him not disabled. She determined that he is not en-\ngaged in substantial gainful employment (step one) and that\nhe has severe impairments of diabetes mellitus, obesity, de-\ngenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, coronary ar-\ntery disease, kidney disease, hypertension, and a history of\natrial fibrillation (step two). But his impairments, she con-\ncluded, do not meet a listing (step three).\n The ALJ determined that Ray has the residual functional\ncapacity (“RFC”) to perform light work (lifting ten to twenty\npounds) and to stand or walk for six hours. She also found\nthat he is able to “understand, remember, and carry out semi-\nskilled tasks” and “attend to tasks for a sufficient period in\norder to complete tasks.” Regarding Ray’s limitations, the\nALJ found him only “partially credible,” largely based on the\nnotion that, if his symptoms were as severe as alleged, his\ndaily activities would be more restricted and he would be\nmore compliant with his prescribed treatments.\n The ALJ presented Ray’s RFC to the vocational expert,\nwho concluded that Ray could work as a school bus moni-\ntor—not as he had performed the job, but as it is performed\nin the national economy. At the hearing, Ray questioned the\nvocational expert about the required level of language devel-\nopment for that position. The vocational expert confirmed\nthat a requirement of the job, as it is generally performed, is\nthe ability to “write compound and complex sentences, using\ncursive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjec-\ntives and adverbs.”\n\fNo. 18-2229 5\n\n At the hearing and in a supplemental brief, Ray argued\nthat his previous position as a bus monitor for disabled\nschoolchildren was a composite job—that is, one that com-\nbines “significant elements of two or more occupations and,\nas such, ha[s] no counterpart in the [Dictionary of Occupa-\ntional Titles],” Social Security Ruling 82-61. His job, Ray ar-\ngued, involved substantial activities from both the school bus\nmonitor and child care attendant positions as they are de-\nscribed in the DOT. Ray questioned the vocational expert on\nthis subject, but the testimony is transcribed as “inaudible”\nduring the key responses, and Ray and the agency represent\nthose portions differently.\n In her written decision, however, the ALJ dismissed Ray’s\nargument about composite jobs as “unpersuasive and unsup-\nported” and concluded that Ray could be a bus monitor as\nthat job is generally performed. She did not discuss the undis-\nputed language-development requirements for that position.\nUltimately, based on the vocational expert’s testimony that\nRay could perform his past relevant work, the ALJ concluded\nthat he is not disabled.\n II. ANALYSIS\n We uphold an ALJ’s decision only if substantial evidence\nfrom the record supports her determination. Lanigan v. Ber-\nryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).\n Ray raises four challenges in this appeal: (1) the ALJ erred\nin evaluating his daily activities and medical reports, making\nher credibility determination patently wrong; (2) the ALJ\nerred in concluding that he could perform his past relevant\nwork because his bus-monitor job was a composite job, which\nprecludes a finding at step four; (3) the ALJ erred in finding\n\f6 No. 18-2229\n\nthat he could do the bus-monitor job as generally performed\nbecause he does not meet the necessary General Educational\nDevelopment Level; and (4) the ALJ erred in assessing his\nmental impairments by finding them not severe and by not\nincluding any limitations on concentration, persistence, and\npace in his RFC.\n With respect to the adverse credibility determination, this\nis the rare case in which the claimant can overcome the “con-\nsiderable deference” we afford such findings unless they are\n“patently wrong,” Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir.\n2009). Specifically, the ALJ erroneously evaluated Ray’s\nsymptoms and daily activities, misinterpreted medical evi-\ndence, and failed to ask why he skipped some appointments.\n In assessing Ray’s back and hip pain, the ALJ acknowl-\nedged that Ray had a herniating disc, degenerative disc and\njoint disease of the lower lumber spine, a herniated nucleus\npulpous, and chronic pain syndrome. But to support her de-\ntermination that these impairments “are not as limiting as he\nalleged,” she cited irrelevant records from treatment he re-\nceived for a staph infection and she noted that his extremities\nwere not fractured, tender, or swollen. The connection be-\ntween those characteristics and Ray’s alleged pain and re-\nstricted mobility is nowhere explained. She also mischaracter-\nized Dr. Fish’s report, writing that the straight-leg raise test\nwas negative when the opposite was true.\n The ALJ also improperly emphasized Ray’s lack of follow-\nup on a recommended spine evaluation and his difficulty\nwith medication compliance. Within five years, Ray missed\ntwo follow-up appointments, one for his heart and one for his\nspine. When the ALJ asked him about the missed cardiology\nappointment, he explained that he was uninsured at the time\n\fNo. 18-2229 7\n\nand could not afford it. Although the record showed that Ray\nhad repeatedly lost his health insurance, the ALJ did not ask\nhim about his missed spine appointment and instead as-\nsumed that he did not attend because his symptoms were not\nserious. That was reversible error; an ALJ must not draw in-\nferences about a claimant’s lack of treatment without explor-\ning the reasons for the inaction. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d\n834, 840 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the ALJ bolstered her pre-\nsumption with evidence of Ray’s difficulty with medication\ncompliance, even though, with respect to his pain (as opposed\nto his diabetes), those medical records point to Ray’s credibil-\nity. Ray’s “noncompliance” with his musculoskeletal treat-\nment stemmed from taking pain medication too frequently,\nwhich does not support the ALJ’s inference that he was exag-\ngerating his pain.\n The ALJ also overemphasized Ray’s daily living activities.\nThe only evidence of those activities comes from Ray’s testi-\nmony (which apparently the ALJ credited in this aspect) and\nhis family’s, and it shows that the sum of Ray’s daily routine\ninvolves showering while seated, fixing simple meals, and us-\ning the dishwasher. In between these activities, he sits and\nwatches television. He could not walk even two hours home\nfrom the hospital, a stark contrast to the ALJ’s finding that he\ncan stand or walk six hours every day. Ray’s minimal daily\nactivities do not support the ALJ’s finding that he exaggerated\nhis symptoms, nor do they support the ultimate RFC.\nSee Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000). Although\nthe ALJ credited him with caring for his son, his son is an\nadult, and no evidence reflects the type of “care” that Ray\nsupposedly provided. Further, the struggle of living with his\nson at one point sent Ray into a suicidal decompensation.\n\f8 No. 18-2229\n\n Ray is also correct that the ALJ made two technical errors\nat step four that led to the unsupportable conclusion that he\ncould perform his past relevant work as a bus monitor as that\nposition exists in the national economy. First, the ALJ con-\ncluded that Ray’s former position was not a “composite” job\nand, therefore, that it could be assessed with reference to the\nDictionary of Occupational Titles. A claimant is not disabled\nif he can do his past relevant work either in the manner he\nperformed it before the impairment or in the manner it is gen-\nerally performed in the national economy. See Getch v. Astrue,\n539 F.3d 473, 482 (7th Cir. 2008). But if the prior position was\na composite job, then the ALJ may not reference it when de-\ntermining whether a claimant can perform his past job as it is\ngenerally performed. See Programs Operation Manual System\nDI 25005.020; see also Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.\nv. Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003) (POMS serve as guidance\nand “warrant respect”); Cannon v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 970, 975\n(7th Cir. 2000) (same).\n Ray argues that his prior job was a composite job that com-\nbined elements of the school bus monitor and school child-\ncare attendant positions. He cites the vocational expert’s tes-\ntimony to support his position, asserting that the expert testi-\nfied that his bus monitor position was a composite job. The\nagency, for its part, asserts that the expert testified to the op-\nposite. Because key parts of the vocational expert’s testimony\nare marked as “[inaudible],” his opinion is not clear. But a re-\nview of the duties of a school child-care attendant bolsters\nRay’s point:\n Attends to personal needs of handicapped children\n while in school to receive specialized academic and\n physical training: Wheels handicapped children to\n classes, lunchrooms, treatment rooms, and other\n\fNo. 18-2229 9\n\n areas of building. Secures children in equipment, such\n as chairs, slings, or stretchers, and places or hoists\n children into baths or pools. Monitors children using\n life support equipment to detect indications of mal-\n functioning of equipment and calls for medical as-\n sistance when needed. Helps children to walk, board\n buses, put on prosthetic appliances, eat, dress, bathe,\n and perform other physical activities as their needs\n require.\nU.S. Dep’t of Lab., 1 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 258\n(4th ed. 1991) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the du-\nties of a school bus monitor are:\n Monitors conduct of students on school bus to main-\n tain discipline and safety: Directs loading of stu-\n dents on bus to prevent congestion and unsafe con-\n ditions. Rides school bus to prevent altercations be-\n tween students and damage to bus. Participates in\n school bus safety drills. May disembark from school\n bus at railroad crossings and clear bus across tracks.\nId. at 269.\n Here, the ALJ concluded that Ray’s previous bus-monitor\njob was not a composite job because his work matched the\nDOT description “in all but the exertional requirements.” But\nRay’s testimony (the only evidence of his job duties) demon-\nstrates that as a bus monitor he performed significant ele-\nments of the childcare-attendant job, like assisting the stu-\ndents in boarding buses and securing them in their equipment\nand chairs. The DOT description of the bus-monitor job does\nnot include these duties, and the vocational expert’s testi-\nmony is ambiguous. Thus, substantial evidence does not sup-\nport the ALJ’s conclusion that Ray’s previous job was not a\ncomposite job.\n\f10 No. 18-2229\n\n Relatedly, Ray argues that the ALJ erred further by con-\ncluding that he could work as a bus monitor as the job is gen-\nerally performed despite his lacking the necessary General\nEducational Development Level for that job. The bus-monitor\nposition requires at least a Language Development Level 2,\nwhich expects that employees will be able to, among other\nthings, “[w]rite compound and complex sentences, using cur-\nsive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjectives\nand adverbs”; “[r]ead adventure stories and comic books,\nlooking up unfamiliar words in dictionary for meaning,\nspelling, and pronunciation”; and “[r]ead instructions for as-\nsembling model cars and airplanes.” U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 2 Dic-\ntionary of Occupational Titles 1011 (4th ed. 1991). No evi-\ndence supports the ALJ’s implied finding that Ray has these\nskills.\n To the contrary, Ray testified that he does not fill out his\nown checks or paperwork because he misspells words and\nthat he can barely read a newspaper article, a limitation con-\nfirmed in Dr. Zera’s evaluation. When a vocational expert’s\ntestimony that a claimant can perform a job conflicts with the\nclaimant’s ability to meet the job’s listed requirements in the\nDOT, then the ALJ must resolve that conflict before relying on\nthe testimony to support her disability findings. See Social Se-\ncurity Ruling 00-4p; Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir.\n2016); Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). The\nALJ’s failure to do that here, along with the other errors at\nstep four, warrants remand. See Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672,\n678 (7th Cir. 2009) (cumulative effect of multiple errors war-\nranted remand).\n Finally, Ray argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his\nmental limitations, first by finding them not severe at step two\n\fNo. 18-2229 11\n\nand later by not including any limitations on concentration,\npersistence, and pace in the RFC. To some extent, Ray is mis-\ntaken. Step two is merely a threshold inquiry; so long as one\nof a claimant’s limitations is found to be severe, error at that\nstep is harmless. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.\n2012). Either way, the ALJ must later consider the limitations\nimposed by all impairments, severe and non-severe. 20 C.F.R.\n§ 404.1523; Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 423 (7th Cir. 2010).\nNevertheless, the ALJ based the RFC on her flawed credibility\nfinding, which led her to discredit the opinions of the two\nagency experts who concluded that Ray had a severe mental\nimpairment. Therefore, the ALJ will have to revisit her assess-\nment of Ray’s mental impairments in any case.\n Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND to\nthe district court with instructions to remand the case to the\nagency for further proceedings.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Danny J. RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2229\\nDANNY J. RAY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL,\\nActing Commissioner of Social Security,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division\\n No. 1:17-cv-01322 — Matthew P. Brookman, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n PER CURIAM. Danny Ray applied for Supplemental Secu-\\nrity Income and Disability Insurance Benefits based on a host\\nof physical disorders and mental conditions. An administra-\\ntive law judge found that Ray was severely impaired by most\\nof his physical conditions, but she denied benefits after find-\\ning that he could perform his past relevant work as a school\\n\\f2 No. 18-2229\\n\\nbus monitor. Ray challenges that finding, arguing that the ALJ\\nerroneously discredited him, failed to treat his prior job as\\n“composite,” and improperly assessed his functional abilities\\ncompared to the job requirements for a bus monitor in the\\ngeneral economy. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s deci-\\nsion. We agree with Ray and vacate the judgment.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Ray lives with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney dis-\\nease, degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and depression.\\nWhen his conditions worsened, he began working gradually\\neasier jobs, from janitor to forklift operator to bus monitor for\\nchildren with special needs, until eventually he gave up his\\nemployment entirely. As a bus monitor, he would lift disa-\\nbled children into their seats on the bus, strap down wheel-\\nchairs, and monitor the children’s behavior. He ultimately\\nquit because it was too painful for his hands, feet, and hips.\\n Ray receives medical care for his physical impairments but\\nhas been noncompliant with some treatments, mostly in rela-\\ntion to his diabetes. He struggles to remember to test his\\nblood-glucose levels, eat healthfully, and take insulin. Doc-\\ntors who treat Ray’s back condition also have noted that he\\ntakes more pain medication than the prescribed amount.\\n In November 2013, Ray applied for social security bene-\\nfits. During the review process, two consulting state-agency\\npsychologists and an examining clinical psychologist,\\nDr. Zera, evaluated his functioning. The consulting psycholo-\\ngists both concluded that Ray is moderately limited in his\\nability to maintain attention and concentration for extended\\nperiods but is not significantly limited in any other aspect of\\nconcentration, persistence, or pace. Dr. Zera determined that\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 3\\n\\nRay has an anxiety disorder and learning disorder, noting his\\n“difficulty reading and poor math skills.” Ray also met with\\nDr. Fish, an agency physician, who determined that Ray’s ma-\\njor functional impairment is exertional tolerance. Dr. Fish\\nnoted a positive result from a supine straight-leg test, which\\nreflects lumbar nerve root compression, though the less-sen-\\nsitive seated test was negative.1\\n The agency denied Ray’s applications initially and upon\\nreconsideration, and his case proceeded to a hearing with an\\nALJ. At the hearing, Ray testified—and his mother and girl-\\nfriend corroborated with written statements—that his daily\\nactivities include taking his medication, making himself three\\nsimple meals, watching television, using the dishwasher, and\\nshowering (while using a shower seat). Outside of these tasks,\\nhe sits and watches television. Ray occasionally does laundry\\nif reminded, and he had the laundry machines moved from\\nthe basement to the first floor of his house because the stairs\\nwere difficult for him. Once per week, he goes grocery shop-\\nping with the assistance of an electric cart. When he did not\\nhave family to drive him, the hospital provided him a bus\\npass because he is physically incapable of walking home.\\n In addition to his physical impairments, Ray has limited\\nintellect. He testified that he completed eight grades of special\\neducation, but he struggles to read and write. Although he\\nwill occasionally purchase a newspaper, it takes time for him\\nto make sense of what he sees. Because of his limitations, his\\n\\n\\n 1 See Alon Rabin, et al., The Sensitivity of the Seated Straight-Leg Raise\\nTest Compared with the Supine Straight-Leg Raise Test in Patients Presenting\\nwith Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Lumbar Nerve Root Compression,\\n88 PHYSICAL MED. & REHAB. 840, 842 (2007).\\n\\f4 No. 18-2229\\n\\nmother or girlfriend must write his checks and complete his\\npaperwork.\\n In her decision, the ALJ analyzed Ray’s application based\\non the five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and\\nfound him not disabled. She determined that he is not en-\\ngaged in substantial gainful employment (step one) and that\\nhe has severe impairments of diabetes mellitus, obesity, de-\\ngenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, coronary ar-\\ntery disease, kidney disease, hypertension, and a history of\\natrial fibrillation (step two). But his impairments, she con-\\ncluded, do not meet a listing (step three).\\n The ALJ determined that Ray has the residual functional\\ncapacity (“RFC”) to perform light work (lifting ten to twenty\\npounds) and to stand or walk for six hours. She also found\\nthat he is able to “understand, remember, and carry out semi-\\nskilled tasks” and “attend to tasks for a sufficient period in\\norder to complete tasks.” Regarding Ray’s limitations, the\\nALJ found him only “partially credible,” largely based on the\\nnotion that, if his symptoms were as severe as alleged, his\\ndaily activities would be more restricted and he would be\\nmore compliant with his prescribed treatments.\\n The ALJ presented Ray’s RFC to the vocational expert,\\nwho concluded that Ray could work as a school bus moni-\\ntor—not as he had performed the job, but as it is performed\\nin the national economy. At the hearing, Ray questioned the\\nvocational expert about the required level of language devel-\\nopment for that position. The vocational expert confirmed\\nthat a requirement of the job, as it is generally performed, is\\nthe ability to “write compound and complex sentences, using\\ncursive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjec-\\ntives and adverbs.”\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 5\\n\\n At the hearing and in a supplemental brief, Ray argued\\nthat his previous position as a bus monitor for disabled\\nschoolchildren was a composite job—that is, one that com-\\nbines “significant elements of two or more occupations and,\\nas such, ha[s] no counterpart in the [Dictionary of Occupa-\\ntional Titles],” Social Security Ruling 82-61. His job, Ray ar-\\ngued, involved substantial activities from both the school bus\\nmonitor and child care attendant positions as they are de-\\nscribed in the DOT. Ray questioned the vocational expert on\\nthis subject, but the testimony is transcribed as “inaudible”\\nduring the key responses, and Ray and the agency represent\\nthose portions differently.\\n In her written decision, however, the ALJ dismissed Ray’s\\nargument about composite jobs as “unpersuasive and unsup-\\nported” and concluded that Ray could be a bus monitor as\\nthat job is generally performed. She did not discuss the undis-\\nputed language-development requirements for that position.\\nUltimately, based on the vocational expert’s testimony that\\nRay could perform his past relevant work, the ALJ concluded\\nthat he is not disabled.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We uphold an ALJ’s decision only if substantial evidence\\nfrom the record supports her determination. Lanigan v. Ber-\\nryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Ray raises four challenges in this appeal: (1) the ALJ erred\\nin evaluating his daily activities and medical reports, making\\nher credibility determination patently wrong; (2) the ALJ\\nerred in concluding that he could perform his past relevant\\nwork because his bus-monitor job was a composite job, which\\nprecludes a finding at step four; (3) the ALJ erred in finding\\n\\f6 No. 18-2229\\n\\nthat he could do the bus-monitor job as generally performed\\nbecause he does not meet the necessary General Educational\\nDevelopment Level; and (4) the ALJ erred in assessing his\\nmental impairments by finding them not severe and by not\\nincluding any limitations on concentration, persistence, and\\npace in his RFC.\\n With respect to the adverse credibility determination, this\\nis the rare case in which the claimant can overcome the “con-\\nsiderable deference” we afford such findings unless they are\\n“patently wrong,” Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir.\\n2009). Specifically, the ALJ erroneously evaluated Ray’s\\nsymptoms and daily activities, misinterpreted medical evi-\\ndence, and failed to ask why he skipped some appointments.\\n In assessing Ray’s back and hip pain, the ALJ acknowl-\\nedged that Ray had a herniating disc, degenerative disc and\\njoint disease of the lower lumber spine, a herniated nucleus\\npulpous, and chronic pain syndrome. But to support her de-\\ntermination that these impairments “are not as limiting as he\\nalleged,” she cited irrelevant records from treatment he re-\\nceived for a staph infection and she noted that his extremities\\nwere not fractured, tender, or swollen. The connection be-\\ntween those characteristics and Ray’s alleged pain and re-\\nstricted mobility is nowhere explained. She also mischaracter-\\nized Dr. Fish’s report, writing that the straight-leg raise test\\nwas negative when the opposite was true.\\n The ALJ also improperly emphasized Ray’s lack of follow-\\nup on a recommended spine evaluation and his difficulty\\nwith medication compliance. Within five years, Ray missed\\ntwo follow-up appointments, one for his heart and one for his\\nspine. When the ALJ asked him about the missed cardiology\\nappointment, he explained that he was uninsured at the time\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 7\\n\\nand could not afford it. Although the record showed that Ray\\nhad repeatedly lost his health insurance, the ALJ did not ask\\nhim about his missed spine appointment and instead as-\\nsumed that he did not attend because his symptoms were not\\nserious. That was reversible error; an ALJ must not draw in-\\nferences about a claimant’s lack of treatment without explor-\\ning the reasons for the inaction. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d\\n834, 840 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the ALJ bolstered her pre-\\nsumption with evidence of Ray’s difficulty with medication\\ncompliance, even though, with respect to his pain (as opposed\\nto his diabetes), those medical records point to Ray’s credibil-\\nity. Ray’s “noncompliance” with his musculoskeletal treat-\\nment stemmed from taking pain medication too frequently,\\nwhich does not support the ALJ’s inference that he was exag-\\ngerating his pain.\\n The ALJ also overemphasized Ray’s daily living activities.\\nThe only evidence of those activities comes from Ray’s testi-\\nmony (which apparently the ALJ credited in this aspect) and\\nhis family’s, and it shows that the sum of Ray’s daily routine\\ninvolves showering while seated, fixing simple meals, and us-\\ning the dishwasher. In between these activities, he sits and\\nwatches television. He could not walk even two hours home\\nfrom the hospital, a stark contrast to the ALJ’s finding that he\\ncan stand or walk six hours every day. Ray’s minimal daily\\nactivities do not support the ALJ’s finding that he exaggerated\\nhis symptoms, nor do they support the ultimate RFC.\\nSee Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000). Although\\nthe ALJ credited him with caring for his son, his son is an\\nadult, and no evidence reflects the type of “care” that Ray\\nsupposedly provided. Further, the struggle of living with his\\nson at one point sent Ray into a suicidal decompensation.\\n\\f8 No. 18-2229\\n\\n Ray is also correct that the ALJ made two technical errors\\nat step four that led to the unsupportable conclusion that he\\ncould perform his past relevant work as a bus monitor as that\\nposition exists in the national economy. First, the ALJ con-\\ncluded that Ray’s former position was not a “composite” job\\nand, therefore, that it could be assessed with reference to the\\nDictionary of Occupational Titles. A claimant is not disabled\\nif he can do his past relevant work either in the manner he\\nperformed it before the impairment or in the manner it is gen-\\nerally performed in the national economy. See Getch v. Astrue,\\n539 F.3d 473, 482 (7th Cir. 2008). But if the prior position was\\na composite job, then the ALJ may not reference it when de-\\ntermining whether a claimant can perform his past job as it is\\ngenerally performed. See Programs Operation Manual System\\nDI 25005.020; see also Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.\\nv. Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003) (POMS serve as guidance\\nand “warrant respect”); Cannon v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 970, 975\\n(7th Cir. 2000) (same).\\n Ray argues that his prior job was a composite job that com-\\nbined elements of the school bus monitor and school child-\\ncare attendant positions. He cites the vocational expert’s tes-\\ntimony to support his position, asserting that the expert testi-\\nfied that his bus monitor position was a composite job. The\\nagency, for its part, asserts that the expert testified to the op-\\nposite. Because key parts of the vocational expert’s testimony\\nare marked as “[inaudible],” his opinion is not clear. But a re-\\nview of the duties of a school child-care attendant bolsters\\nRay’s point:\\n Attends to personal needs of handicapped children\\n while in school to receive specialized academic and\\n physical training: Wheels handicapped children to\\n classes, lunchrooms, treatment rooms, and other\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 9\\n\\n areas of building. Secures children in equipment, such\\n as chairs, slings, or stretchers, and places or hoists\\n children into baths or pools. Monitors children using\\n life support equipment to detect indications of mal-\\n functioning of equipment and calls for medical as-\\n sistance when needed. Helps children to walk, board\\n buses, put on prosthetic appliances, eat, dress, bathe,\\n and perform other physical activities as their needs\\n require.\\nU.S. Dep’t of Lab., 1 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 258\\n(4th ed. 1991) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the du-\\nties of a school bus monitor are:\\n Monitors conduct of students on school bus to main-\\n tain discipline and safety: Directs loading of stu-\\n dents on bus to prevent congestion and unsafe con-\\n ditions. Rides school bus to prevent altercations be-\\n tween students and damage to bus. Participates in\\n school bus safety drills. May disembark from school\\n bus at railroad crossings and clear bus across tracks.\\nId. at 269.\\n Here, the ALJ concluded that Ray’s previous bus-monitor\\njob was not a composite job because his work matched the\\nDOT description “in all but the exertional requirements.” But\\nRay’s testimony (the only evidence of his job duties) demon-\\nstrates that as a bus monitor he performed significant ele-\\nments of the childcare-attendant job, like assisting the stu-\\ndents in boarding buses and securing them in their equipment\\nand chairs. The DOT description of the bus-monitor job does\\nnot include these duties, and the vocational expert’s testi-\\nmony is ambiguous. Thus, substantial evidence does not sup-\\nport the ALJ’s conclusion that Ray’s previous job was not a\\ncomposite job.\\n\\f10 No. 18-2229\\n\\n Relatedly, Ray argues that the ALJ erred further by con-\\ncluding that he could work as a bus monitor as the job is gen-\\nerally performed despite his lacking the necessary General\\nEducational Development Level for that job. The bus-monitor\\nposition requires at least a Language Development Level 2,\\nwhich expects that employees will be able to, among other\\nthings, “[w]rite compound and complex sentences, using cur-\\nsive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjectives\\nand adverbs”; “[r]ead adventure stories and comic books,\\nlooking up unfamiliar words in dictionary for meaning,\\nspelling, and pronunciation”; and “[r]ead instructions for as-\\nsembling model cars and airplanes.” U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 2 Dic-\\ntionary of Occupational Titles 1011 (4th ed. 1991). No evi-\\ndence supports the ALJ’s implied finding that Ray has these\\nskills.\\n To the contrary, Ray testified that he does not fill out his\\nown checks or paperwork because he misspells words and\\nthat he can barely read a newspaper article, a limitation con-\\nfirmed in Dr. Zera’s evaluation. When a vocational expert’s\\ntestimony that a claimant can perform a job conflicts with the\\nclaimant’s ability to meet the job’s listed requirements in the\\nDOT, then the ALJ must resolve that conflict before relying on\\nthe testimony to support her disability findings. See Social Se-\\ncurity Ruling 00-4p; Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir.\\n2016); Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). The\\nALJ’s failure to do that here, along with the other errors at\\nstep four, warrants remand. See Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672,\\n678 (7th Cir. 2009) (cumulative effect of multiple errors war-\\nranted remand).\\n Finally, Ray argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his\\nmental limitations, first by finding them not severe at step two\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 11\\n\\nand later by not including any limitations on concentration,\\npersistence, and pace in the RFC. To some extent, Ray is mis-\\ntaken. Step two is merely a threshold inquiry; so long as one\\nof a claimant’s limitations is found to be severe, error at that\\nstep is harmless. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.\\n2012). Either way, the ALJ must later consider the limitations\\nimposed by all impairments, severe and non-severe. 20 C.F.R.\\n§ 404.1523; Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 423 (7th Cir. 2010).\\nNevertheless, the ALJ based the RFC on her flawed credibility\\nfinding, which led her to discredit the opinions of the two\\nagency experts who concluded that Ray had a severe mental\\nimpairment. Therefore, the ALJ will have to revisit her assess-\\nment of Ray’s mental impairments in any case.\\n Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND to\\nthe district court with instructions to remand the case to the\\nagency for further proceedings.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":693,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589800,"string":"4,589,800"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2229"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2229\\nDANNY J. RAY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL,\\nActing Commissioner of Social Security,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division\\n No. 1:17-cv-01322 — Matthew P. Brookman, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n PER CURIAM. Danny Ray applied for Supplemental Secu-\\nrity Income and Disability Insurance Benefits based on a host\\nof physical disorders and mental conditions. An administra-\\ntive law judge found that Ray was severely impaired by most\\nof his physical conditions, but she denied benefits after find-\\ning that he could perform his past relevant work as a school\\n\\f2 No. 18-2229\\n\\nbus monitor. Ray challenges that finding, arguing that the ALJ\\nerroneously discredited him, failed to treat his prior job as\\n“composite,” and improperly assessed his functional abilities\\ncompared to the job requirements for a bus monitor in the\\ngeneral economy. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s deci-\\nsion. We agree with Ray and vacate the judgment.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Ray lives with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney dis-\\nease, degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and depression.\\nWhen his conditions worsened, he began working gradually\\neasier jobs, from janitor to forklift operator to bus monitor for\\nchildren with special needs, until eventually he gave up his\\nemployment entirely. As a bus monitor, he would lift disa-\\nbled children into their seats on the bus, strap down wheel-\\nchairs, and monitor the children’s behavior. He ultimately\\nquit because it was too painful for his hands, feet, and hips.\\n Ray receives medical care for his physical impairments but\\nhas been noncompliant with some treatments, mostly in rela-\\ntion to his diabetes. He struggles to remember to test his\\nblood-glucose levels, eat healthfully, and take insulin. Doc-\\ntors who treat Ray’s back condition also have noted that he\\ntakes more pain medication than the prescribed amount.\\n In November 2013, Ray applied for social security bene-\\nfits. During the review process, two consulting state-agency\\npsychologists and an examining clinical psychologist,\\nDr. Zera, evaluated his functioning. The consulting psycholo-\\ngists both concluded that Ray is moderately limited in his\\nability to maintain attention and concentration for extended\\nperiods but is not significantly limited in any other aspect of\\nconcentration, persistence, or pace. Dr. Zera determined that\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 3\\n\\nRay has an anxiety disorder and learning disorder, noting his\\n“difficulty reading and poor math skills.” Ray also met with\\nDr. Fish, an agency physician, who determined that Ray’s ma-\\njor functional impairment is exertional tolerance. Dr. Fish\\nnoted a positive result from a supine straight-leg test, which\\nreflects lumbar nerve root compression, though the less-sen-\\nsitive seated test was negative.1\\n The agency denied Ray’s applications initially and upon\\nreconsideration, and his case proceeded to a hearing with an\\nALJ. At the hearing, Ray testified—and his mother and girl-\\nfriend corroborated with written statements—that his daily\\nactivities include taking his medication, making himself three\\nsimple meals, watching television, using the dishwasher, and\\nshowering (while using a shower seat). Outside of these tasks,\\nhe sits and watches television. Ray occasionally does laundry\\nif reminded, and he had the laundry machines moved from\\nthe basement to the first floor of his house because the stairs\\nwere difficult for him. Once per week, he goes grocery shop-\\nping with the assistance of an electric cart. When he did not\\nhave family to drive him, the hospital provided him a bus\\npass because he is physically incapable of walking home.\\n In addition to his physical impairments, Ray has limited\\nintellect. He testified that he completed eight grades of special\\neducation, but he struggles to read and write. Although he\\nwill occasionally purchase a newspaper, it takes time for him\\nto make sense of what he sees. Because of his limitations, his\\n\\n\\n 1 See Alon Rabin, et al., The Sensitivity of the Seated Straight-Leg Raise\\nTest Compared with the Supine Straight-Leg Raise Test in Patients Presenting\\nwith Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Lumbar Nerve Root Compression,\\n88 PHYSICAL MED. & REHAB. 840, 842 (2007).\\n\\f4 No. 18-2229\\n\\nmother or girlfriend must write his checks and complete his\\npaperwork.\\n In her decision, the ALJ analyzed Ray’s application based\\non the five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and\\nfound him not disabled. She determined that he is not en-\\ngaged in substantial gainful employment (step one) and that\\nhe has severe impairments of diabetes mellitus, obesity, de-\\ngenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, coronary ar-\\ntery disease, kidney disease, hypertension, and a history of\\natrial fibrillation (step two). But his impairments, she con-\\ncluded, do not meet a listing (step three).\\n The ALJ determined that Ray has the residual functional\\ncapacity (“RFC”) to perform light work (lifting ten to twenty\\npounds) and to stand or walk for six hours. She also found\\nthat he is able to “understand, remember, and carry out semi-\\nskilled tasks” and “attend to tasks for a sufficient period in\\norder to complete tasks.” Regarding Ray’s limitations, the\\nALJ found him only “partially credible,” largely based on the\\nnotion that, if his symptoms were as severe as alleged, his\\ndaily activities would be more restricted and he would be\\nmore compliant with his prescribed treatments.\\n The ALJ presented Ray’s RFC to the vocational expert,\\nwho concluded that Ray could work as a school bus moni-\\ntor—not as he had performed the job, but as it is performed\\nin the national economy. At the hearing, Ray questioned the\\nvocational expert about the required level of language devel-\\nopment for that position. The vocational expert confirmed\\nthat a requirement of the job, as it is generally performed, is\\nthe ability to “write compound and complex sentences, using\\ncursive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjec-\\ntives and adverbs.”\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 5\\n\\n At the hearing and in a supplemental brief, Ray argued\\nthat his previous position as a bus monitor for disabled\\nschoolchildren was a composite job—that is, one that com-\\nbines “significant elements of two or more occupations and,\\nas such, ha[s] no counterpart in the [Dictionary of Occupa-\\ntional Titles],” Social Security Ruling 82-61. His job, Ray ar-\\ngued, involved substantial activities from both the school bus\\nmonitor and child care attendant positions as they are de-\\nscribed in the DOT. Ray questioned the vocational expert on\\nthis subject, but the testimony is transcribed as “inaudible”\\nduring the key responses, and Ray and the agency represent\\nthose portions differently.\\n In her written decision, however, the ALJ dismissed Ray’s\\nargument about composite jobs as “unpersuasive and unsup-\\nported” and concluded that Ray could be a bus monitor as\\nthat job is generally performed. She did not discuss the undis-\\nputed language-development requirements for that position.\\nUltimately, based on the vocational expert’s testimony that\\nRay could perform his past relevant work, the ALJ concluded\\nthat he is not disabled.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We uphold an ALJ’s decision only if substantial evidence\\nfrom the record supports her determination. Lanigan v. Ber-\\nryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Ray raises four challenges in this appeal: (1) the ALJ erred\\nin evaluating his daily activities and medical reports, making\\nher credibility determination patently wrong; (2) the ALJ\\nerred in concluding that he could perform his past relevant\\nwork because his bus-monitor job was a composite job, which\\nprecludes a finding at step four; (3) the ALJ erred in finding\\n\\f6 No. 18-2229\\n\\nthat he could do the bus-monitor job as generally performed\\nbecause he does not meet the necessary General Educational\\nDevelopment Level; and (4) the ALJ erred in assessing his\\nmental impairments by finding them not severe and by not\\nincluding any limitations on concentration, persistence, and\\npace in his RFC.\\n With respect to the adverse credibility determination, this\\nis the rare case in which the claimant can overcome the “con-\\nsiderable deference” we afford such findings unless they are\\n“patently wrong,” Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir.\\n2009). Specifically, the ALJ erroneously evaluated Ray’s\\nsymptoms and daily activities, misinterpreted medical evi-\\ndence, and failed to ask why he skipped some appointments.\\n In assessing Ray’s back and hip pain, the ALJ acknowl-\\nedged that Ray had a herniating disc, degenerative disc and\\njoint disease of the lower lumber spine, a herniated nucleus\\npulpous, and chronic pain syndrome. But to support her de-\\ntermination that these impairments “are not as limiting as he\\nalleged,” she cited irrelevant records from treatment he re-\\nceived for a staph infection and she noted that his extremities\\nwere not fractured, tender, or swollen. The connection be-\\ntween those characteristics and Ray’s alleged pain and re-\\nstricted mobility is nowhere explained. She also mischaracter-\\nized Dr. Fish’s report, writing that the straight-leg raise test\\nwas negative when the opposite was true.\\n The ALJ also improperly emphasized Ray’s lack of follow-\\nup on a recommended spine evaluation and his difficulty\\nwith medication compliance. Within five years, Ray missed\\ntwo follow-up appointments, one for his heart and one for his\\nspine. When the ALJ asked him about the missed cardiology\\nappointment, he explained that he was uninsured at the time\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 7\\n\\nand could not afford it. Although the record showed that Ray\\nhad repeatedly lost his health insurance, the ALJ did not ask\\nhim about his missed spine appointment and instead as-\\nsumed that he did not attend because his symptoms were not\\nserious. That was reversible error; an ALJ must not draw in-\\nferences about a claimant’s lack of treatment without explor-\\ning the reasons for the inaction. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d\\n834, 840 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the ALJ bolstered her pre-\\nsumption with evidence of Ray’s difficulty with medication\\ncompliance, even though, with respect to his pain (as opposed\\nto his diabetes), those medical records point to Ray’s credibil-\\nity. Ray’s “noncompliance” with his musculoskeletal treat-\\nment stemmed from taking pain medication too frequently,\\nwhich does not support the ALJ’s inference that he was exag-\\ngerating his pain.\\n The ALJ also overemphasized Ray’s daily living activities.\\nThe only evidence of those activities comes from Ray’s testi-\\nmony (which apparently the ALJ credited in this aspect) and\\nhis family’s, and it shows that the sum of Ray’s daily routine\\ninvolves showering while seated, fixing simple meals, and us-\\ning the dishwasher. In between these activities, he sits and\\nwatches television. He could not walk even two hours home\\nfrom the hospital, a stark contrast to the ALJ’s finding that he\\ncan stand or walk six hours every day. Ray’s minimal daily\\nactivities do not support the ALJ’s finding that he exaggerated\\nhis symptoms, nor do they support the ultimate RFC.\\nSee Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000). Although\\nthe ALJ credited him with caring for his son, his son is an\\nadult, and no evidence reflects the type of “care” that Ray\\nsupposedly provided. Further, the struggle of living with his\\nson at one point sent Ray into a suicidal decompensation.\\n\\f8 No. 18-2229\\n\\n Ray is also correct that the ALJ made two technical errors\\nat step four that led to the unsupportable conclusion that he\\ncould perform his past relevant work as a bus monitor as that\\nposition exists in the national economy. First, the ALJ con-\\ncluded that Ray’s former position was not a “composite” job\\nand, therefore, that it could be assessed with reference to the\\nDictionary of Occupational Titles. A claimant is not disabled\\nif he can do his past relevant work either in the manner he\\nperformed it before the impairment or in the manner it is gen-\\nerally performed in the national economy. See Getch v. Astrue,\\n539 F.3d 473, 482 (7th Cir. 2008). But if the prior position was\\na composite job, then the ALJ may not reference it when de-\\ntermining whether a claimant can perform his past job as it is\\ngenerally performed. See Programs Operation Manual System\\nDI 25005.020; see also Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.\\nv. Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003) (POMS serve as guidance\\nand “warrant respect”); Cannon v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 970, 975\\n(7th Cir. 2000) (same).\\n Ray argues that his prior job was a composite job that com-\\nbined elements of the school bus monitor and school child-\\ncare attendant positions. He cites the vocational expert’s tes-\\ntimony to support his position, asserting that the expert testi-\\nfied that his bus monitor position was a composite job. The\\nagency, for its part, asserts that the expert testified to the op-\\nposite. Because key parts of the vocational expert’s testimony\\nare marked as “[inaudible],” his opinion is not clear. But a re-\\nview of the duties of a school child-care attendant bolsters\\nRay’s point:\\n Attends to personal needs of handicapped children\\n while in school to receive specialized academic and\\n physical training: Wheels handicapped children to\\n classes, lunchrooms, treatment rooms, and other\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 9\\n\\n areas of building. Secures children in equipment, such\\n as chairs, slings, or stretchers, and places or hoists\\n children into baths or pools. Monitors children using\\n life support equipment to detect indications of mal-\\n functioning of equipment and calls for medical as-\\n sistance when needed. Helps children to walk, board\\n buses, put on prosthetic appliances, eat, dress, bathe,\\n and perform other physical activities as their needs\\n require.\\nU.S. Dep’t of Lab., 1 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 258\\n(4th ed. 1991) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the du-\\nties of a school bus monitor are:\\n Monitors conduct of students on school bus to main-\\n tain discipline and safety: Directs loading of stu-\\n dents on bus to prevent congestion and unsafe con-\\n ditions. Rides school bus to prevent altercations be-\\n tween students and damage to bus. Participates in\\n school bus safety drills. May disembark from school\\n bus at railroad crossings and clear bus across tracks.\\nId. at 269.\\n Here, the ALJ concluded that Ray’s previous bus-monitor\\njob was not a composite job because his work matched the\\nDOT description “in all but the exertional requirements.” But\\nRay’s testimony (the only evidence of his job duties) demon-\\nstrates that as a bus monitor he performed significant ele-\\nments of the childcare-attendant job, like assisting the stu-\\ndents in boarding buses and securing them in their equipment\\nand chairs. The DOT description of the bus-monitor job does\\nnot include these duties, and the vocational expert’s testi-\\nmony is ambiguous. Thus, substantial evidence does not sup-\\nport the ALJ’s conclusion that Ray’s previous job was not a\\ncomposite job.\\n\\f10 No. 18-2229\\n\\n Relatedly, Ray argues that the ALJ erred further by con-\\ncluding that he could work as a bus monitor as the job is gen-\\nerally performed despite his lacking the necessary General\\nEducational Development Level for that job. The bus-monitor\\nposition requires at least a Language Development Level 2,\\nwhich expects that employees will be able to, among other\\nthings, “[w]rite compound and complex sentences, using cur-\\nsive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjectives\\nand adverbs”; “[r]ead adventure stories and comic books,\\nlooking up unfamiliar words in dictionary for meaning,\\nspelling, and pronunciation”; and “[r]ead instructions for as-\\nsembling model cars and airplanes.” U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 2 Dic-\\ntionary of Occupational Titles 1011 (4th ed. 1991). No evi-\\ndence supports the ALJ’s implied finding that Ray has these\\nskills.\\n To the contrary, Ray testified that he does not fill out his\\nown checks or paperwork because he misspells words and\\nthat he can barely read a newspaper article, a limitation con-\\nfirmed in Dr. Zera’s evaluation. When a vocational expert’s\\ntestimony that a claimant can perform a job conflicts with the\\nclaimant’s ability to meet the job’s listed requirements in the\\nDOT, then the ALJ must resolve that conflict before relying on\\nthe testimony to support her disability findings. See Social Se-\\ncurity Ruling 00-4p; Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir.\\n2016); Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). The\\nALJ’s failure to do that here, along with the other errors at\\nstep four, warrants remand. See Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672,\\n678 (7th Cir. 2009) (cumulative effect of multiple errors war-\\nranted remand).\\n Finally, Ray argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his\\nmental limitations, first by finding them not severe at step two\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 11\\n\\nand later by not including any limitations on concentration,\\npersistence, and pace in the RFC. To some extent, Ray is mis-\\ntaken. Step two is merely a threshold inquiry; so long as one\\nof a claimant’s limitations is found to be severe, error at that\\nstep is harmless. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.\\n2012). Either way, the ALJ must later consider the limitations\\nimposed by all impairments, severe and non-severe. 20 C.F.R.\\n§ 404.1523; Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 423 (7th Cir. 2010).\\nNevertheless, the ALJ based the RFC on her flawed credibility\\nfinding, which led her to discredit the opinions of the two\\nagency experts who concluded that Ray had a severe mental\\nimpairment. Therefore, the ALJ will have to revisit her assess-\\nment of Ray’s mental impairments in any case.\\n Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND to\\nthe district court with instructions to remand the case to the\\nagency for further proceedings.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4367053/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589800/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2229\nDANNY J. RAY,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL,\nActing Commissioner of Social Security,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division\n No. 1:17-cv-01322 — Matthew P. Brookman, Magistrate Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit\nJudges.\n PER CURIAM. Danny Ray applied for Supplemental Secu-\nrity Income and Disability Insurance Benefits based on a host\nof physical disorders and mental conditions. An administra-\ntive law judge found that Ray was severely impaired by most\nof his physical conditions, but she denied benefits after find-\ning that he could perform his past relevant work as a school\n\f2 No. 18-2229\n\nbus monitor. Ray challenges that finding, arguing that the ALJ\nerroneously discredited him, failed to treat his prior job as\n“composite,” and improperly assessed his functional abilities\ncompared to the job requirements for a bus monitor in the\ngeneral economy. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s deci-\nsion. We agree with Ray and vacate the judgment.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Ray lives with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney dis-\nease, degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and depression.\nWhen his conditions worsened, he began working gradually\neasier jobs, from janitor to forklift operator to bus monitor for\nchildren with special needs, until eventually he gave up his\nemployment entirely. As a bus monitor, he would lift disa-\nbled children into their seats on the bus, strap down wheel-\nchairs, and monitor the children’s behavior. He ultimately\nquit because it was too painful for his hands, feet, and hips.\n Ray receives medical care for his physical impairments but\nhas been noncompliant with some treatments, mostly in rela-\ntion to his diabetes. He struggles to remember to test his\nblood-glucose levels, eat healthfully, and take insulin. Doc-\ntors who treat Ray’s back condition also have noted that he\ntakes more pain medication than the prescribed amount.\n In November 2013, Ray applied for social security bene-\nfits. During the review process, two consulting state-agency\npsychologists and an examining clinical psychologist,\nDr. Zera, evaluated his functioning. The consulting psycholo-\ngists both concluded that Ray is moderately limited in his\nability to maintain attention and concentration for extended\nperiods but is not significantly limited in any other aspect of\nconcentration, persistence, or pace. Dr. Zera determined that\n\fNo. 18-2229 3\n\nRay has an anxiety disorder and learning disorder, noting his\n“difficulty reading and poor math skills.” Ray also met with\nDr. Fish, an agency physician, who determined that Ray’s ma-\njor functional impairment is exertional tolerance. Dr. Fish\nnoted a positive result from a supine straight-leg test, which\nreflects lumbar nerve root compression, though the less-sen-\nsitive seated test was negative.1\n The agency denied Ray’s applications initially and upon\nreconsideration, and his case proceeded to a hearing with an\nALJ. At the hearing, Ray testified—and his mother and girl-\nfriend corroborated with written statements—that his daily\nactivities include taking his medication, making himself three\nsimple meals, watching television, using the dishwasher, and\nshowering (while using a shower seat). Outside of these tasks,\nhe sits and watches television. Ray occasionally does laundry\nif reminded, and he had the laundry machines moved from\nthe basement to the first floor of his house because the stairs\nwere difficult for him. Once per week, he goes grocery shop-\nping with the assistance of an electric cart. When he did not\nhave family to drive him, the hospital provided him a bus\npass because he is physically incapable of walking home.\n In addition to his physical impairments, Ray has limited\nintellect. He testified that he completed eight grades of special\neducation, but he struggles to read and write. Although he\nwill occasionally purchase a newspaper, it takes time for him\nto make sense of what he sees. Because of his limitations, his\n\n\n 1 See Alon Rabin, et al., The Sensitivity of the Seated Straight-Leg Raise\nTest Compared with the Supine Straight-Leg Raise Test in Patients Presenting\nwith Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Lumbar Nerve Root Compression,\n88 PHYSICAL MED. & REHAB. 840, 842 (2007).\n\f4 No. 18-2229\n\nmother or girlfriend must write his checks and complete his\npaperwork.\n In her decision, the ALJ analyzed Ray’s application based\non the five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and\nfound him not disabled. She determined that he is not en-\ngaged in substantial gainful employment (step one) and that\nhe has severe impairments of diabetes mellitus, obesity, de-\ngenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, coronary ar-\ntery disease, kidney disease, hypertension, and a history of\natrial fibrillation (step two). But his impairments, she con-\ncluded, do not meet a listing (step three).\n The ALJ determined that Ray has the residual functional\ncapacity (“RFC”) to perform light work (lifting ten to twenty\npounds) and to stand or walk for six hours. She also found\nthat he is able to “understand, remember, and carry out semi-\nskilled tasks” and “attend to tasks for a sufficient period in\norder to complete tasks.” Regarding Ray’s limitations, the\nALJ found him only “partially credible,” largely based on the\nnotion that, if his symptoms were as severe as alleged, his\ndaily activities would be more restricted and he would be\nmore compliant with his prescribed treatments.\n The ALJ presented Ray’s RFC to the vocational expert,\nwho concluded that Ray could work as a school bus moni-\ntor—not as he had performed the job, but as it is performed\nin the national economy. At the hearing, Ray questioned the\nvocational expert about the required level of language devel-\nopment for that position. The vocational expert confirmed\nthat a requirement of the job, as it is generally performed, is\nthe ability to “write compound and complex sentences, using\ncursive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjec-\ntives and adverbs.”\n\fNo. 18-2229 5\n\n At the hearing and in a supplemental brief, Ray argued\nthat his previous position as a bus monitor for disabled\nschoolchildren was a composite job—that is, one that com-\nbines “significant elements of two or more occupations and,\nas such, ha[s] no counterpart in the [Dictionary of Occupa-\ntional Titles],” Social Security Ruling 82-61. His job, Ray ar-\ngued, involved substantial activities from both the school bus\nmonitor and child care attendant positions as they are de-\nscribed in the DOT. Ray questioned the vocational expert on\nthis subject, but the testimony is transcribed as “inaudible”\nduring the key responses, and Ray and the agency represent\nthose portions differently.\n In her written decision, however, the ALJ dismissed Ray’s\nargument about composite jobs as “unpersuasive and unsup-\nported” and concluded that Ray could be a bus monitor as\nthat job is generally performed. She did not discuss the undis-\nputed language-development requirements for that position.\nUltimately, based on the vocational expert’s testimony that\nRay could perform his past relevant work, the ALJ concluded\nthat he is not disabled.\n II. ANALYSIS\n We uphold an ALJ’s decision only if substantial evidence\nfrom the record supports her determination. Lanigan v. Ber-\nryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).\n Ray raises four challenges in this appeal: (1) the ALJ erred\nin evaluating his daily activities and medical reports, making\nher credibility determination patently wrong; (2) the ALJ\nerred in concluding that he could perform his past relevant\nwork because his bus-monitor job was a composite job, which\nprecludes a finding at step four; (3) the ALJ erred in finding\n\f6 No. 18-2229\n\nthat he could do the bus-monitor job as generally performed\nbecause he does not meet the necessary General Educational\nDevelopment Level; and (4) the ALJ erred in assessing his\nmental impairments by finding them not severe and by not\nincluding any limitations on concentration, persistence, and\npace in his RFC.\n With respect to the adverse credibility determination, this\nis the rare case in which the claimant can overcome the “con-\nsiderable deference” we afford such findings unless they are\n“patently wrong,” Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir.\n2009). Specifically, the ALJ erroneously evaluated Ray’s\nsymptoms and daily activities, misinterpreted medical evi-\ndence, and failed to ask why he skipped some appointments.\n In assessing Ray’s back and hip pain, the ALJ acknowl-\nedged that Ray had a herniating disc, degenerative disc and\njoint disease of the lower lumber spine, a herniated nucleus\npulpous, and chronic pain syndrome. But to support her de-\ntermination that these impairments “are not as limiting as he\nalleged,” she cited irrelevant records from treatment he re-\nceived for a staph infection and she noted that his extremities\nwere not fractured, tender, or swollen. The connection be-\ntween those characteristics and Ray’s alleged pain and re-\nstricted mobility is nowhere explained. She also mischaracter-\nized Dr. Fish’s report, writing that the straight-leg raise test\nwas negative when the opposite was true.\n The ALJ also improperly emphasized Ray’s lack of follow-\nup on a recommended spine evaluation and his difficulty\nwith medication compliance. Within five years, Ray missed\ntwo follow-up appointments, one for his heart and one for his\nspine. When the ALJ asked him about the missed cardiology\nappointment, he explained that he was uninsured at the time\n\fNo. 18-2229 7\n\nand could not afford it. Although the record showed that Ray\nhad repeatedly lost his health insurance, the ALJ did not ask\nhim about his missed spine appointment and instead as-\nsumed that he did not attend because his symptoms were not\nserious. That was reversible error; an ALJ must not draw in-\nferences about a claimant’s lack of treatment without explor-\ning the reasons for the inaction. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d\n834, 840 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the ALJ bolstered her pre-\nsumption with evidence of Ray’s difficulty with medication\ncompliance, even though, with respect to his pain (as opposed\nto his diabetes), those medical records point to Ray’s credibil-\nity. Ray’s “noncompliance” with his musculoskeletal treat-\nment stemmed from taking pain medication too frequently,\nwhich does not support the ALJ’s inference that he was exag-\ngerating his pain.\n The ALJ also overemphasized Ray’s daily living activities.\nThe only evidence of those activities comes from Ray’s testi-\nmony (which apparently the ALJ credited in this aspect) and\nhis family’s, and it shows that the sum of Ray’s daily routine\ninvolves showering while seated, fixing simple meals, and us-\ning the dishwasher. In between these activities, he sits and\nwatches television. He could not walk even two hours home\nfrom the hospital, a stark contrast to the ALJ’s finding that he\ncan stand or walk six hours every day. Ray’s minimal daily\nactivities do not support the ALJ’s finding that he exaggerated\nhis symptoms, nor do they support the ultimate RFC.\nSee Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000). Although\nthe ALJ credited him with caring for his son, his son is an\nadult, and no evidence reflects the type of “care” that Ray\nsupposedly provided. Further, the struggle of living with his\nson at one point sent Ray into a suicidal decompensation.\n\f8 No. 18-2229\n\n Ray is also correct that the ALJ made two technical errors\nat step four that led to the unsupportable conclusion that he\ncould perform his past relevant work as a bus monitor as that\nposition exists in the national economy. First, the ALJ con-\ncluded that Ray’s former position was not a “composite” job\nand, therefore, that it could be assessed with reference to the\nDictionary of Occupational Titles. A claimant is not disabled\nif he can do his past relevant work either in the manner he\nperformed it before the impairment or in the manner it is gen-\nerally performed in the national economy. See Getch v. Astrue,\n539 F.3d 473, 482 (7th Cir. 2008). But if the prior position was\na composite job, then the ALJ may not reference it when de-\ntermining whether a claimant can perform his past job as it is\ngenerally performed. See Programs Operation Manual System\nDI 25005.020; see also Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.\nv. Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003) (POMS serve as guidance\nand “warrant respect”); Cannon v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 970, 975\n(7th Cir. 2000) (same).\n Ray argues that his prior job was a composite job that com-\nbined elements of the school bus monitor and school child-\ncare attendant positions. He cites the vocational expert’s tes-\ntimony to support his position, asserting that the expert testi-\nfied that his bus monitor position was a composite job. The\nagency, for its part, asserts that the expert testified to the op-\nposite. Because key parts of the vocational expert’s testimony\nare marked as “[inaudible],” his opinion is not clear. But a re-\nview of the duties of a school child-care attendant bolsters\nRay’s point:\n Attends to personal needs of handicapped children\n while in school to receive specialized academic and\n physical training: Wheels handicapped children to\n classes, lunchrooms, treatment rooms, and other\n\fNo. 18-2229 9\n\n areas of building. Secures children in equipment, such\n as chairs, slings, or stretchers, and places or hoists\n children into baths or pools. Monitors children using\n life support equipment to detect indications of mal-\n functioning of equipment and calls for medical as-\n sistance when needed. Helps children to walk, board\n buses, put on prosthetic appliances, eat, dress, bathe,\n and perform other physical activities as their needs\n require.\nU.S. Dep’t of Lab., 1 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 258\n(4th ed. 1991) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the du-\nties of a school bus monitor are:\n Monitors conduct of students on school bus to main-\n tain discipline and safety: Directs loading of stu-\n dents on bus to prevent congestion and unsafe con-\n ditions. Rides school bus to prevent altercations be-\n tween students and damage to bus. Participates in\n school bus safety drills. May disembark from school\n bus at railroad crossings and clear bus across tracks.\nId. at 269.\n Here, the ALJ concluded that Ray’s previous bus-monitor\njob was not a composite job because his work matched the\nDOT description “in all but the exertional requirements.” But\nRay’s testimony (the only evidence of his job duties) demon-\nstrates that as a bus monitor he performed significant ele-\nments of the childcare-attendant job, like assisting the stu-\ndents in boarding buses and securing them in their equipment\nand chairs. The DOT description of the bus-monitor job does\nnot include these duties, and the vocational expert’s testi-\nmony is ambiguous. Thus, substantial evidence does not sup-\nport the ALJ’s conclusion that Ray’s previous job was not a\ncomposite job.\n\f10 No. 18-2229\n\n Relatedly, Ray argues that the ALJ erred further by con-\ncluding that he could work as a bus monitor as the job is gen-\nerally performed despite his lacking the necessary General\nEducational Development Level for that job. The bus-monitor\nposition requires at least a Language Development Level 2,\nwhich expects that employees will be able to, among other\nthings, “[w]rite compound and complex sentences, using cur-\nsive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjectives\nand adverbs”; “[r]ead adventure stories and comic books,\nlooking up unfamiliar words in dictionary for meaning,\nspelling, and pronunciation”; and “[r]ead instructions for as-\nsembling model cars and airplanes.” U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 2 Dic-\ntionary of Occupational Titles 1011 (4th ed. 1991). No evi-\ndence supports the ALJ’s implied finding that Ray has these\nskills.\n To the contrary, Ray testified that he does not fill out his\nown checks or paperwork because he misspells words and\nthat he can barely read a newspaper article, a limitation con-\nfirmed in Dr. Zera’s evaluation. When a vocational expert’s\ntestimony that a claimant can perform a job conflicts with the\nclaimant’s ability to meet the job’s listed requirements in the\nDOT, then the ALJ must resolve that conflict before relying on\nthe testimony to support her disability findings. See Social Se-\ncurity Ruling 00-4p; Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir.\n2016); Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). The\nALJ’s failure to do that here, along with the other errors at\nstep four, warrants remand. See Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672,\n678 (7th Cir. 2009) (cumulative effect of multiple errors war-\nranted remand).\n Finally, Ray argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his\nmental limitations, first by finding them not severe at step two\n\fNo. 18-2229 11\n\nand later by not including any limitations on concentration,\npersistence, and pace in the RFC. To some extent, Ray is mis-\ntaken. Step two is merely a threshold inquiry; so long as one\nof a claimant’s limitations is found to be severe, error at that\nstep is harmless. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.\n2012). Either way, the ALJ must later consider the limitations\nimposed by all impairments, severe and non-severe. 20 C.F.R.\n§ 404.1523; Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 423 (7th Cir. 2010).\nNevertheless, the ALJ based the RFC on her flawed credibility\nfinding, which led her to discredit the opinions of the two\nagency experts who concluded that Ray had a severe mental\nimpairment. Therefore, the ALJ will have to revisit her assess-\nment of Ray’s mental impairments in any case.\n Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND to\nthe district court with instructions to remand the case to the\nagency for further proceedings.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2229\\nDANNY J. RAY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL,\\nActing Commissioner of Social Security,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division\\n No. 1:17-cv-01322 — Matthew P. Brookman, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n PER CURIAM. Danny Ray applied for Supplemental Secu-\\nrity Income and Disability Insurance Benefits based on a host\\nof physical disorders and mental conditions. An administra-\\ntive law judge found that Ray was severely impaired by most\\nof his physical conditions, but she denied benefits after find-\\ning that he could perform his past relevant work as a school\\n\\f2 No. 18-2229\\n\\nbus monitor. Ray challenges that finding, arguing that the ALJ\\nerroneously discredited him, failed to treat his prior job as\\n“composite,” and improperly assessed his functional abilities\\ncompared to the job requirements for a bus monitor in the\\ngeneral economy. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s deci-\\nsion. We agree with Ray and vacate the judgment.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Ray lives with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney dis-\\nease, degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and depression.\\nWhen his conditions worsened, he began working gradually\\neasier jobs, from janitor to forklift operator to bus monitor for\\nchildren with special needs, until eventually he gave up his\\nemployment entirely. As a bus monitor, he would lift disa-\\nbled children into their seats on the bus, strap down wheel-\\nchairs, and monitor the children’s behavior. He ultimately\\nquit because it was too painful for his hands, feet, and hips.\\n Ray receives medical care for his physical impairments but\\nhas been noncompliant with some treatments, mostly in rela-\\ntion to his diabetes. He struggles to remember to test his\\nblood-glucose levels, eat healthfully, and take insulin. Doc-\\ntors who treat Ray’s back condition also have noted that he\\ntakes more pain medication than the prescribed amount.\\n In November 2013, Ray applied for social security bene-\\nfits. During the review process, two consulting state-agency\\npsychologists and an examining clinical psychologist,\\nDr. Zera, evaluated his functioning. The consulting psycholo-\\ngists both concluded that Ray is moderately limited in his\\nability to maintain attention and concentration for extended\\nperiods but is not significantly limited in any other aspect of\\nconcentration, persistence, or pace. Dr. Zera determined that\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 3\\n\\nRay has an anxiety disorder and learning disorder, noting his\\n“difficulty reading and poor math skills.” Ray also met with\\nDr. Fish, an agency physician, who determined that Ray’s ma-\\njor functional impairment is exertional tolerance. Dr. Fish\\nnoted a positive result from a supine straight-leg test, which\\nreflects lumbar nerve root compression, though the less-sen-\\nsitive seated test was negative.1\\n The agency denied Ray’s applications initially and upon\\nreconsideration, and his case proceeded to a hearing with an\\nALJ. At the hearing, Ray testified—and his mother and girl-\\nfriend corroborated with written statements—that his daily\\nactivities include taking his medication, making himself three\\nsimple meals, watching television, using the dishwasher, and\\nshowering (while using a shower seat). Outside of these tasks,\\nhe sits and watches television. Ray occasionally does laundry\\nif reminded, and he had the laundry machines moved from\\nthe basement to the first floor of his house because the stairs\\nwere difficult for him. Once per week, he goes grocery shop-\\nping with the assistance of an electric cart. When he did not\\nhave family to drive him, the hospital provided him a bus\\npass because he is physically incapable of walking home.\\n In addition to his physical impairments, Ray has limited\\nintellect. He testified that he completed eight grades of special\\neducation, but he struggles to read and write. Although he\\nwill occasionally purchase a newspaper, it takes time for him\\nto make sense of what he sees. Because of his limitations, his\\n\\n\\n 1 See Alon Rabin, et al., The Sensitivity of the Seated Straight-Leg Raise\\nTest Compared with the Supine Straight-Leg Raise Test in Patients Presenting\\nwith Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Lumbar Nerve Root Compression,\\n88 PHYSICAL MED. & REHAB. 840, 842 (2007).\\n\\f4 No. 18-2229\\n\\nmother or girlfriend must write his checks and complete his\\npaperwork.\\n In her decision, the ALJ analyzed Ray’s application based\\non the five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and\\nfound him not disabled. She determined that he is not en-\\ngaged in substantial gainful employment (step one) and that\\nhe has severe impairments of diabetes mellitus, obesity, de-\\ngenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, coronary ar-\\ntery disease, kidney disease, hypertension, and a history of\\natrial fibrillation (step two). But his impairments, she con-\\ncluded, do not meet a listing (step three).\\n The ALJ determined that Ray has the residual functional\\ncapacity (“RFC”) to perform light work (lifting ten to twenty\\npounds) and to stand or walk for six hours. She also found\\nthat he is able to “understand, remember, and carry out semi-\\nskilled tasks” and “attend to tasks for a sufficient period in\\norder to complete tasks.” Regarding Ray’s limitations, the\\nALJ found him only “partially credible,” largely based on the\\nnotion that, if his symptoms were as severe as alleged, his\\ndaily activities would be more restricted and he would be\\nmore compliant with his prescribed treatments.\\n The ALJ presented Ray’s RFC to the vocational expert,\\nwho concluded that Ray could work as a school bus moni-\\ntor—not as he had performed the job, but as it is performed\\nin the national economy. At the hearing, Ray questioned the\\nvocational expert about the required level of language devel-\\nopment for that position. The vocational expert confirmed\\nthat a requirement of the job, as it is generally performed, is\\nthe ability to “write compound and complex sentences, using\\ncursive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjec-\\ntives and adverbs.”\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 5\\n\\n At the hearing and in a supplemental brief, Ray argued\\nthat his previous position as a bus monitor for disabled\\nschoolchildren was a composite job—that is, one that com-\\nbines “significant elements of two or more occupations and,\\nas such, ha[s] no counterpart in the [Dictionary of Occupa-\\ntional Titles],” Social Security Ruling 82-61. His job, Ray ar-\\ngued, involved substantial activities from both the school bus\\nmonitor and child care attendant positions as they are de-\\nscribed in the DOT. Ray questioned the vocational expert on\\nthis subject, but the testimony is transcribed as “inaudible”\\nduring the key responses, and Ray and the agency represent\\nthose portions differently.\\n In her written decision, however, the ALJ dismissed Ray’s\\nargument about composite jobs as “unpersuasive and unsup-\\nported” and concluded that Ray could be a bus monitor as\\nthat job is generally performed. She did not discuss the undis-\\nputed language-development requirements for that position.\\nUltimately, based on the vocational expert’s testimony that\\nRay could perform his past relevant work, the ALJ concluded\\nthat he is not disabled.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We uphold an ALJ’s decision only if substantial evidence\\nfrom the record supports her determination. Lanigan v. Ber-\\nryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Ray raises four challenges in this appeal: (1) the ALJ erred\\nin evaluating his daily activities and medical reports, making\\nher credibility determination patently wrong; (2) the ALJ\\nerred in concluding that he could perform his past relevant\\nwork because his bus-monitor job was a composite job, which\\nprecludes a finding at step four; (3) the ALJ erred in finding\\n\\f6 No. 18-2229\\n\\nthat he could do the bus-monitor job as generally performed\\nbecause he does not meet the necessary General Educational\\nDevelopment Level; and (4) the ALJ erred in assessing his\\nmental impairments by finding them not severe and by not\\nincluding any limitations on concentration, persistence, and\\npace in his RFC.\\n With respect to the adverse credibility determination, this\\nis the rare case in which the claimant can overcome the “con-\\nsiderable deference” we afford such findings unless they are\\n“patently wrong,” Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir.\\n2009). Specifically, the ALJ erroneously evaluated Ray’s\\nsymptoms and daily activities, misinterpreted medical evi-\\ndence, and failed to ask why he skipped some appointments.\\n In assessing Ray’s back and hip pain, the ALJ acknowl-\\nedged that Ray had a herniating disc, degenerative disc and\\njoint disease of the lower lumber spine, a herniated nucleus\\npulpous, and chronic pain syndrome. But to support her de-\\ntermination that these impairments “are not as limiting as he\\nalleged,” she cited irrelevant records from treatment he re-\\nceived for a staph infection and she noted that his extremities\\nwere not fractured, tender, or swollen. The connection be-\\ntween those characteristics and Ray’s alleged pain and re-\\nstricted mobility is nowhere explained. She also mischaracter-\\nized Dr. Fish’s report, writing that the straight-leg raise test\\nwas negative when the opposite was true.\\n The ALJ also improperly emphasized Ray’s lack of follow-\\nup on a recommended spine evaluation and his difficulty\\nwith medication compliance. Within five years, Ray missed\\ntwo follow-up appointments, one for his heart and one for his\\nspine. When the ALJ asked him about the missed cardiology\\nappointment, he explained that he was uninsured at the time\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 7\\n\\nand could not afford it. Although the record showed that Ray\\nhad repeatedly lost his health insurance, the ALJ did not ask\\nhim about his missed spine appointment and instead as-\\nsumed that he did not attend because his symptoms were not\\nserious. That was reversible error; an ALJ must not draw in-\\nferences about a claimant’s lack of treatment without explor-\\ning the reasons for the inaction. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d\\n834, 840 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the ALJ bolstered her pre-\\nsumption with evidence of Ray’s difficulty with medication\\ncompliance, even though, with respect to his pain (as opposed\\nto his diabetes), those medical records point to Ray’s credibil-\\nity. Ray’s “noncompliance” with his musculoskeletal treat-\\nment stemmed from taking pain medication too frequently,\\nwhich does not support the ALJ’s inference that he was exag-\\ngerating his pain.\\n The ALJ also overemphasized Ray’s daily living activities.\\nThe only evidence of those activities comes from Ray’s testi-\\nmony (which apparently the ALJ credited in this aspect) and\\nhis family’s, and it shows that the sum of Ray’s daily routine\\ninvolves showering while seated, fixing simple meals, and us-\\ning the dishwasher. In between these activities, he sits and\\nwatches television. He could not walk even two hours home\\nfrom the hospital, a stark contrast to the ALJ’s finding that he\\ncan stand or walk six hours every day. Ray’s minimal daily\\nactivities do not support the ALJ’s finding that he exaggerated\\nhis symptoms, nor do they support the ultimate RFC.\\nSee Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000). Although\\nthe ALJ credited him with caring for his son, his son is an\\nadult, and no evidence reflects the type of “care” that Ray\\nsupposedly provided. Further, the struggle of living with his\\nson at one point sent Ray into a suicidal decompensation.\\n\\f8 No. 18-2229\\n\\n Ray is also correct that the ALJ made two technical errors\\nat step four that led to the unsupportable conclusion that he\\ncould perform his past relevant work as a bus monitor as that\\nposition exists in the national economy. First, the ALJ con-\\ncluded that Ray’s former position was not a “composite” job\\nand, therefore, that it could be assessed with reference to the\\nDictionary of Occupational Titles. A claimant is not disabled\\nif he can do his past relevant work either in the manner he\\nperformed it before the impairment or in the manner it is gen-\\nerally performed in the national economy. See Getch v. Astrue,\\n539 F.3d 473, 482 (7th Cir. 2008). But if the prior position was\\na composite job, then the ALJ may not reference it when de-\\ntermining whether a claimant can perform his past job as it is\\ngenerally performed. See Programs Operation Manual System\\nDI 25005.020; see also Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.\\nv. Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003) (POMS serve as guidance\\nand “warrant respect”); Cannon v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 970, 975\\n(7th Cir. 2000) (same).\\n Ray argues that his prior job was a composite job that com-\\nbined elements of the school bus monitor and school child-\\ncare attendant positions. He cites the vocational expert’s tes-\\ntimony to support his position, asserting that the expert testi-\\nfied that his bus monitor position was a composite job. The\\nagency, for its part, asserts that the expert testified to the op-\\nposite. Because key parts of the vocational expert’s testimony\\nare marked as “[inaudible],” his opinion is not clear. But a re-\\nview of the duties of a school child-care attendant bolsters\\nRay’s point:\\n Attends to personal needs of handicapped children\\n while in school to receive specialized academic and\\n physical training: Wheels handicapped children to\\n classes, lunchrooms, treatment rooms, and other\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 9\\n\\n areas of building. Secures children in equipment, such\\n as chairs, slings, or stretchers, and places or hoists\\n children into baths or pools. Monitors children using\\n life support equipment to detect indications of mal-\\n functioning of equipment and calls for medical as-\\n sistance when needed. Helps children to walk, board\\n buses, put on prosthetic appliances, eat, dress, bathe,\\n and perform other physical activities as their needs\\n require.\\nU.S. Dep’t of Lab., 1 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 258\\n(4th ed. 1991) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the du-\\nties of a school bus monitor are:\\n Monitors conduct of students on school bus to main-\\n tain discipline and safety: Directs loading of stu-\\n dents on bus to prevent congestion and unsafe con-\\n ditions. Rides school bus to prevent altercations be-\\n tween students and damage to bus. Participates in\\n school bus safety drills. May disembark from school\\n bus at railroad crossings and clear bus across tracks.\\nId. at 269.\\n Here, the ALJ concluded that Ray’s previous bus-monitor\\njob was not a composite job because his work matched the\\nDOT description “in all but the exertional requirements.” But\\nRay’s testimony (the only evidence of his job duties) demon-\\nstrates that as a bus monitor he performed significant ele-\\nments of the childcare-attendant job, like assisting the stu-\\ndents in boarding buses and securing them in their equipment\\nand chairs. The DOT description of the bus-monitor job does\\nnot include these duties, and the vocational expert’s testi-\\nmony is ambiguous. Thus, substantial evidence does not sup-\\nport the ALJ’s conclusion that Ray’s previous job was not a\\ncomposite job.\\n\\f10 No. 18-2229\\n\\n Relatedly, Ray argues that the ALJ erred further by con-\\ncluding that he could work as a bus monitor as the job is gen-\\nerally performed despite his lacking the necessary General\\nEducational Development Level for that job. The bus-monitor\\nposition requires at least a Language Development Level 2,\\nwhich expects that employees will be able to, among other\\nthings, “[w]rite compound and complex sentences, using cur-\\nsive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjectives\\nand adverbs”; “[r]ead adventure stories and comic books,\\nlooking up unfamiliar words in dictionary for meaning,\\nspelling, and pronunciation”; and “[r]ead instructions for as-\\nsembling model cars and airplanes.” U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 2 Dic-\\ntionary of Occupational Titles 1011 (4th ed. 1991). No evi-\\ndence supports the ALJ’s implied finding that Ray has these\\nskills.\\n To the contrary, Ray testified that he does not fill out his\\nown checks or paperwork because he misspells words and\\nthat he can barely read a newspaper article, a limitation con-\\nfirmed in Dr. Zera’s evaluation. When a vocational expert’s\\ntestimony that a claimant can perform a job conflicts with the\\nclaimant’s ability to meet the job’s listed requirements in the\\nDOT, then the ALJ must resolve that conflict before relying on\\nthe testimony to support her disability findings. See Social Se-\\ncurity Ruling 00-4p; Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir.\\n2016); Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). The\\nALJ’s failure to do that here, along with the other errors at\\nstep four, warrants remand. See Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672,\\n678 (7th Cir. 2009) (cumulative effect of multiple errors war-\\nranted remand).\\n Finally, Ray argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his\\nmental limitations, first by finding them not severe at step two\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 11\\n\\nand later by not including any limitations on concentration,\\npersistence, and pace in the RFC. To some extent, Ray is mis-\\ntaken. Step two is merely a threshold inquiry; so long as one\\nof a claimant’s limitations is found to be severe, error at that\\nstep is harmless. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.\\n2012). Either way, the ALJ must later consider the limitations\\nimposed by all impairments, severe and non-severe. 20 C.F.R.\\n§ 404.1523; Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 423 (7th Cir. 2010).\\nNevertheless, the ALJ based the RFC on her flawed credibility\\nfinding, which led her to discredit the opinions of the two\\nagency experts who concluded that Ray had a severe mental\\nimpairment. Therefore, the ALJ will have to revisit her assess-\\nment of Ray’s mental impairments in any case.\\n Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND to\\nthe district court with instructions to remand the case to the\\nagency for further proceedings.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":694,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589922,"string":"4,589,922"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2229"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2229\\nDANNY J. RAY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL,\\nActing Commissioner of Social Security,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division\\n No. 1:17-cv-01322 — Matthew P. Brookman, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n PER CURIAM. Danny Ray applied for Supplemental Secu-\\nrity Income and Disability Insurance Benefits based on a host\\nof physical disorders and mental conditions. An administra-\\ntive law judge found that Ray was severely impaired by most\\nof his physical conditions, but she denied benefits after find-\\ning that he could perform his past relevant work as a school\\n\\f2 No. 18-2229\\n\\nbus monitor. Ray challenges that finding, arguing that the ALJ\\nerroneously discredited him, failed to treat his prior job as\\n“composite,” and improperly assessed his functional abilities\\ncompared to the job requirements for a bus monitor in the\\ngeneral economy. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s deci-\\nsion. We agree with Ray and vacate the judgment.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Ray lives with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney dis-\\nease, degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and depression.\\nWhen his conditions worsened, he began working gradually\\neasier jobs, from janitor to forklift operator to bus monitor for\\nchildren with special needs, until eventually he gave up his\\nemployment entirely. As a bus monitor, he would lift disa-\\nbled children into their seats on the bus, strap down wheel-\\nchairs, and monitor the children’s behavior. He ultimately\\nquit because it was too painful for his hands, feet, and hips.\\n Ray receives medical care for his physical impairments but\\nhas been noncompliant with some treatments, mostly in rela-\\ntion to his diabetes. He struggles to remember to test his\\nblood-glucose levels, eat healthfully, and take insulin. Doc-\\ntors who treat Ray’s back condition also have noted that he\\ntakes more pain medication than the prescribed amount.\\n In November 2013, Ray applied for social security bene-\\nfits. During the review process, two consulting state-agency\\npsychologists and an examining clinical psychologist,\\nDr. Zera, evaluated his functioning. The consulting psycholo-\\ngists both concluded that Ray is moderately limited in his\\nability to maintain attention and concentration for extended\\nperiods but is not significantly limited in any other aspect of\\nconcentration, persistence, or pace. Dr. Zera determined that\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 3\\n\\nRay has an anxiety disorder and learning disorder, noting his\\n“difficulty reading and poor math skills.” Ray also met with\\nDr. Fish, an agency physician, who determined that Ray’s ma-\\njor functional impairment is exertional tolerance. Dr. Fish\\nnoted a positive result from a supine straight-leg test, which\\nreflects lumbar nerve root compression, though the less-sen-\\nsitive seated test was negative.1\\n The agency denied Ray’s applications initially and upon\\nreconsideration, and his case proceeded to a hearing with an\\nALJ. At the hearing, Ray testified—and his mother and girl-\\nfriend corroborated with written statements—that his daily\\nactivities include taking his medication, making himself three\\nsimple meals, watching television, using the dishwasher, and\\nshowering (while using a shower seat). Outside of these tasks,\\nhe sits and watches television. Ray occasionally does laundry\\nif reminded, and he had the laundry machines moved from\\nthe basement to the first floor of his house because the stairs\\nwere difficult for him. Once per week, he goes grocery shop-\\nping with the assistance of an electric cart. When he did not\\nhave family to drive him, the hospital provided him a bus\\npass because he is physically incapable of walking home.\\n In addition to his physical impairments, Ray has limited\\nintellect. He testified that he completed eight grades of special\\neducation, but he struggles to read and write. Although he\\nwill occasionally purchase a newspaper, it takes time for him\\nto make sense of what he sees. Because of his limitations, his\\n\\n\\n 1 See Alon Rabin, et al., The Sensitivity of the Seated Straight-Leg Raise\\nTest Compared with the Supine Straight-Leg Raise Test in Patients Presenting\\nwith Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Lumbar Nerve Root Compression,\\n88 PHYSICAL MED. & REHAB. 840, 842 (2007).\\n\\f4 No. 18-2229\\n\\nmother or girlfriend must write his checks and complete his\\npaperwork.\\n In her decision, the ALJ analyzed Ray’s application based\\non the five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and\\nfound him not disabled. She determined that he is not en-\\ngaged in substantial gainful employment (step one) and that\\nhe has severe impairments of diabetes mellitus, obesity, de-\\ngenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, coronary ar-\\ntery disease, kidney disease, hypertension, and a history of\\natrial fibrillation (step two). But his impairments, she con-\\ncluded, do not meet a listing (step three).\\n The ALJ determined that Ray has the residual functional\\ncapacity (“RFC”) to perform light work (lifting ten to twenty\\npounds) and to stand or walk for six hours. She also found\\nthat he is able to “understand, remember, and carry out semi-\\nskilled tasks” and “attend to tasks for a sufficient period in\\norder to complete tasks.” Regarding Ray’s limitations, the\\nALJ found him only “partially credible,” largely based on the\\nnotion that, if his symptoms were as severe as alleged, his\\ndaily activities would be more restricted and he would be\\nmore compliant with his prescribed treatments.\\n The ALJ presented Ray’s RFC to the vocational expert,\\nwho concluded that Ray could work as a school bus moni-\\ntor—not as he had performed the job, but as it is performed\\nin the national economy. At the hearing, Ray questioned the\\nvocational expert about the required level of language devel-\\nopment for that position. The vocational expert confirmed\\nthat a requirement of the job, as it is generally performed, is\\nthe ability to “write compound and complex sentences, using\\ncursive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjec-\\ntives and adverbs.”\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 5\\n\\n At the hearing and in a supplemental brief, Ray argued\\nthat his previous position as a bus monitor for disabled\\nschoolchildren was a composite job—that is, one that com-\\nbines “significant elements of two or more occupations and,\\nas such, ha[s] no counterpart in the [Dictionary of Occupa-\\ntional Titles],” Social Security Ruling 82-61. His job, Ray ar-\\ngued, involved substantial activities from both the school bus\\nmonitor and child care attendant positions as they are de-\\nscribed in the DOT. Ray questioned the vocational expert on\\nthis subject, but the testimony is transcribed as “inaudible”\\nduring the key responses, and Ray and the agency represent\\nthose portions differently.\\n In her written decision, however, the ALJ dismissed Ray’s\\nargument about composite jobs as “unpersuasive and unsup-\\nported” and concluded that Ray could be a bus monitor as\\nthat job is generally performed. She did not discuss the undis-\\nputed language-development requirements for that position.\\nUltimately, based on the vocational expert’s testimony that\\nRay could perform his past relevant work, the ALJ concluded\\nthat he is not disabled.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We uphold an ALJ’s decision only if substantial evidence\\nfrom the record supports her determination. Lanigan v. Ber-\\nryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Ray raises four challenges in this appeal: (1) the ALJ erred\\nin evaluating his daily activities and medical reports, making\\nher credibility determination patently wrong; (2) the ALJ\\nerred in concluding that he could perform his past relevant\\nwork because his bus-monitor job was a composite job, which\\nprecludes a finding at step four; (3) the ALJ erred in finding\\n\\f6 No. 18-2229\\n\\nthat he could do the bus-monitor job as generally performed\\nbecause he does not meet the necessary General Educational\\nDevelopment Level; and (4) the ALJ erred in assessing his\\nmental impairments by finding them not severe and by not\\nincluding any limitations on concentration, persistence, and\\npace in his RFC.\\n With respect to the adverse credibility determination, this\\nis the rare case in which the claimant can overcome the “con-\\nsiderable deference” we afford such findings unless they are\\n“patently wrong,” Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir.\\n2009). Specifically, the ALJ erroneously evaluated Ray’s\\nsymptoms and daily activities, misinterpreted medical evi-\\ndence, and failed to ask why he skipped some appointments.\\n In assessing Ray’s back and hip pain, the ALJ acknowl-\\nedged that Ray had a herniating disc, degenerative disc and\\njoint disease of the lower lumber spine, a herniated nucleus\\npulpous, and chronic pain syndrome. But to support her de-\\ntermination that these impairments “are not as limiting as he\\nalleged,” she cited irrelevant records from treatment he re-\\nceived for a staph infection and she noted that his extremities\\nwere not fractured, tender, or swollen. The connection be-\\ntween those characteristics and Ray’s alleged pain and re-\\nstricted mobility is nowhere explained. She also mischaracter-\\nized Dr. Fish’s report, writing that the straight-leg raise test\\nwas negative when the opposite was true.\\n The ALJ also improperly emphasized Ray’s lack of follow-\\nup on a recommended spine evaluation and his difficulty\\nwith medication compliance. Within five years, Ray missed\\ntwo follow-up appointments, one for his heart and one for his\\nspine. When the ALJ asked him about the missed cardiology\\nappointment, he explained that he was uninsured at the time\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 7\\n\\nand could not afford it. Although the record showed that Ray\\nhad repeatedly lost his health insurance, the ALJ did not ask\\nhim about his missed spine appointment and instead as-\\nsumed that he did not attend because his symptoms were not\\nserious. That was reversible error; an ALJ must not draw in-\\nferences about a claimant’s lack of treatment without explor-\\ning the reasons for the inaction. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d\\n834, 840 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the ALJ bolstered her pre-\\nsumption with evidence of Ray’s difficulty with medication\\ncompliance, even though, with respect to his pain (as opposed\\nto his diabetes), those medical records point to Ray’s credibil-\\nity. Ray’s “noncompliance” with his musculoskeletal treat-\\nment stemmed from taking pain medication too frequently,\\nwhich does not support the ALJ’s inference that he was exag-\\ngerating his pain.\\n The ALJ also overemphasized Ray’s daily living activities.\\nThe only evidence of those activities comes from Ray’s testi-\\nmony (which apparently the ALJ credited in this aspect) and\\nhis family’s, and it shows that the sum of Ray’s daily routine\\ninvolves showering while seated, fixing simple meals, and us-\\ning the dishwasher. In between these activities, he sits and\\nwatches television. These minimal daily activities do not sup-\\nport the ALJ’s finding that Ray exaggerated his symptoms,\\nnor do they support the ultimate RFC. See Clifford v. Apfel,\\n227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000). Although the ALJ credited\\nhim with caring for his son, his son is an adult, and no evi-\\ndence reflects the type of “care” that Ray supposedly pro-\\nvided. Further, the struggle of living with his son at one point\\nsent Ray into a suicidal decompensation.\\n Ray is also correct that the ALJ made two technical errors\\nat step four that led to the unsupportable conclusion that he\\n\\f8 No. 18-2229\\n\\ncould perform his past relevant work as a bus monitor as that\\nposition exists in the national economy. First, the ALJ con-\\ncluded that Ray’s former position was not a “composite” job\\nand, therefore, that it could be assessed with reference to the\\nDictionary of Occupational Titles. A claimant is not disabled\\nif he can do his past relevant work either in the manner he\\nperformed it before the impairment or in the manner it is gen-\\nerally performed in the national economy. See Getch v. Astrue,\\n539 F.3d 473, 482 (7th Cir. 2008). But if the prior position was\\na composite job, then the ALJ may not reference it when de-\\ntermining whether a claimant can perform his past job as it is\\ngenerally performed. See Programs Operation Manual System\\nDI 25005.020; see also Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.\\nv. Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003) (POMS serve as guidance\\nand “warrant respect”); Cannon v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 970, 975\\n(7th Cir. 2000) (same).\\n Ray argues that his prior job was a composite job that com-\\nbined elements of the school bus monitor and school child-\\ncare attendant positions. He cites the vocational expert’s tes-\\ntimony to support his position, asserting that the expert testi-\\nfied that his bus monitor position was a composite job. The\\nagency, for its part, asserts that the expert testified to the op-\\nposite. Because key parts of the vocational expert’s testimony\\nare marked as “[inaudible],” his opinion is not clear. But a re-\\nview of the duties of a school child-care attendant bolsters\\nRay’s point:\\n Attends to personal needs of handicapped children\\n while in school to receive specialized academic and\\n physical training: Wheels handicapped children to\\n classes, lunchrooms, treatment rooms, and other ar-\\n eas of building. Secures children in equipment, such as\\n chairs, slings, or stretchers, and places or hoists\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 9\\n\\n children into baths or pools. Monitors children using\\n life support equipment to detect indications of mal-\\n functioning of equipment and calls for medical as-\\n sistance when needed. Helps children to walk, board\\n buses, put on prosthetic appliances, eat, dress, bathe,\\n and perform other physical activities as their needs\\n require.\\nU.S. Dep’t of Lab., 1 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 258\\n(4th ed. 1991) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the du-\\nties of a school bus monitor are:\\n Monitors conduct of students on school bus to main-\\n tain discipline and safety: Directs loading of stu-\\n dents on bus to prevent congestion and unsafe con-\\n ditions. Rides school bus to prevent altercations be-\\n tween students and damage to bus. Participates in\\n school bus safety drills. May disembark from school\\n bus at railroad crossings and clear bus across tracks.\\nId. at 269.\\n Here, the ALJ concluded that Ray’s previous bus-monitor\\njob was not a composite job because his work matched the\\nDOT description “in all but the exertional requirements.” But\\nRay’s testimony (the only evidence of his job duties) demon-\\nstrates that as a bus monitor he performed significant ele-\\nments of the childcare-attendant job, like assisting the stu-\\ndents in boarding buses and securing them in their equipment\\nand chairs. The DOT description of the bus-monitor job does\\nnot include these duties, and the vocational expert’s testi-\\nmony is ambiguous. Thus, substantial evidence does not sup-\\nport the ALJ’s conclusion that Ray’s previous job was not a\\ncomposite job.\\n\\f10 No. 18-2229\\n\\n Relatedly, Ray argues that the ALJ erred further by con-\\ncluding that he could work as a bus monitor as the job is gen-\\nerally performed despite his lacking the necessary General\\nEducational Development Level for that job. The bus-monitor\\nposition requires at least a Language Development Level 2,\\nwhich expects that employees will be able to, among other\\nthings, “[w]rite compound and complex sentences, using cur-\\nsive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjectives\\nand adverbs”; “[r]ead adventure stories and comic books,\\nlooking up unfamiliar words in dictionary for meaning,\\nspelling, and pronunciation”; and “[r]ead instructions for as-\\nsembling model cars and airplanes.” U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 2 Dic-\\ntionary of Occupational Titles 1011 (4th ed. 1991). No evi-\\ndence supports the ALJ’s implied finding that Ray has these\\nskills.\\n To the contrary, Ray testified that he does not fill out his\\nown checks or paperwork because he misspells words and\\nthat he can barely read a newspaper article, a limitation con-\\nfirmed in Dr. Zera’s evaluation. When a vocational expert’s\\ntestimony that a claimant can perform a job conflicts with the\\nclaimant’s ability to meet the job’s listed requirements in the\\nDOT, then the ALJ must resolve that conflict before relying on\\nthe testimony to support her disability findings. See Social Se-\\ncurity Ruling 00-4p; Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir.\\n2016); Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). The\\nALJ’s failure to do that here, along with the other errors at\\nstep four, warrants remand. See Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672,\\n678 (7th Cir. 2009) (cumulative effect of multiple errors war-\\nranted remand).\\n Finally, Ray argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his\\nmental limitations, first by finding them not severe at step two\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 11\\n\\nand later by not including any limitations on concentration,\\npersistence, and pace in the RFC. To some extent, Ray is mis-\\ntaken. Step two is merely a threshold inquiry; so long as one\\nof a claimant’s limitations is found to be severe, error at that\\nstep is harmless. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.\\n2012). Either way, the ALJ must later consider the limitations\\nimposed by all impairments, severe and non-severe. 20 C.F.R.\\n§ 404.1523; Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 423 (7th Cir. 2010).\\nNevertheless, the ALJ based the RFC on her flawed credibility\\nfinding, which led her to discredit the opinions of the two\\nagency experts who concluded that Ray had a severe mental\\nimpairment. Therefore, the ALJ will have to revisit her assess-\\nment of Ray’s mental impairments in any case.\\n Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND to\\nthe district court with instructions to remand the case to the\\nagency for further proceedings.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4367175/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589922/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2229\nDANNY J. RAY,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL,\nActing Commissioner of Social Security,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division\n No. 1:17-cv-01322 — Matthew P. Brookman, Magistrate Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit\nJudges.\n PER CURIAM. Danny Ray applied for Supplemental Secu-\nrity Income and Disability Insurance Benefits based on a host\nof physical disorders and mental conditions. An administra-\ntive law judge found that Ray was severely impaired by most\nof his physical conditions, but she denied benefits after find-\ning that he could perform his past relevant work as a school\n\f2 No. 18-2229\n\nbus monitor. Ray challenges that finding, arguing that the ALJ\nerroneously discredited him, failed to treat his prior job as\n“composite,” and improperly assessed his functional abilities\ncompared to the job requirements for a bus monitor in the\ngeneral economy. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s deci-\nsion. We agree with Ray and vacate the judgment.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Ray lives with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney dis-\nease, degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and depression.\nWhen his conditions worsened, he began working gradually\neasier jobs, from janitor to forklift operator to bus monitor for\nchildren with special needs, until eventually he gave up his\nemployment entirely. As a bus monitor, he would lift disa-\nbled children into their seats on the bus, strap down wheel-\nchairs, and monitor the children’s behavior. He ultimately\nquit because it was too painful for his hands, feet, and hips.\n Ray receives medical care for his physical impairments but\nhas been noncompliant with some treatments, mostly in rela-\ntion to his diabetes. He struggles to remember to test his\nblood-glucose levels, eat healthfully, and take insulin. Doc-\ntors who treat Ray’s back condition also have noted that he\ntakes more pain medication than the prescribed amount.\n In November 2013, Ray applied for social security bene-\nfits. During the review process, two consulting state-agency\npsychologists and an examining clinical psychologist,\nDr. Zera, evaluated his functioning. The consulting psycholo-\ngists both concluded that Ray is moderately limited in his\nability to maintain attention and concentration for extended\nperiods but is not significantly limited in any other aspect of\nconcentration, persistence, or pace. Dr. Zera determined that\n\fNo. 18-2229 3\n\nRay has an anxiety disorder and learning disorder, noting his\n“difficulty reading and poor math skills.” Ray also met with\nDr. Fish, an agency physician, who determined that Ray’s ma-\njor functional impairment is exertional tolerance. Dr. Fish\nnoted a positive result from a supine straight-leg test, which\nreflects lumbar nerve root compression, though the less-sen-\nsitive seated test was negative.1\n The agency denied Ray’s applications initially and upon\nreconsideration, and his case proceeded to a hearing with an\nALJ. At the hearing, Ray testified—and his mother and girl-\nfriend corroborated with written statements—that his daily\nactivities include taking his medication, making himself three\nsimple meals, watching television, using the dishwasher, and\nshowering (while using a shower seat). Outside of these tasks,\nhe sits and watches television. Ray occasionally does laundry\nif reminded, and he had the laundry machines moved from\nthe basement to the first floor of his house because the stairs\nwere difficult for him. Once per week, he goes grocery shop-\nping with the assistance of an electric cart. When he did not\nhave family to drive him, the hospital provided him a bus\npass because he is physically incapable of walking home.\n In addition to his physical impairments, Ray has limited\nintellect. He testified that he completed eight grades of special\neducation, but he struggles to read and write. Although he\nwill occasionally purchase a newspaper, it takes time for him\nto make sense of what he sees. Because of his limitations, his\n\n\n 1 See Alon Rabin, et al., The Sensitivity of the Seated Straight-Leg Raise\nTest Compared with the Supine Straight-Leg Raise Test in Patients Presenting\nwith Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Lumbar Nerve Root Compression,\n88 PHYSICAL MED. & REHAB. 840, 842 (2007).\n\f4 No. 18-2229\n\nmother or girlfriend must write his checks and complete his\npaperwork.\n In her decision, the ALJ analyzed Ray’s application based\non the five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and\nfound him not disabled. She determined that he is not en-\ngaged in substantial gainful employment (step one) and that\nhe has severe impairments of diabetes mellitus, obesity, de-\ngenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, coronary ar-\ntery disease, kidney disease, hypertension, and a history of\natrial fibrillation (step two). But his impairments, she con-\ncluded, do not meet a listing (step three).\n The ALJ determined that Ray has the residual functional\ncapacity (“RFC”) to perform light work (lifting ten to twenty\npounds) and to stand or walk for six hours. She also found\nthat he is able to “understand, remember, and carry out semi-\nskilled tasks” and “attend to tasks for a sufficient period in\norder to complete tasks.” Regarding Ray’s limitations, the\nALJ found him only “partially credible,” largely based on the\nnotion that, if his symptoms were as severe as alleged, his\ndaily activities would be more restricted and he would be\nmore compliant with his prescribed treatments.\n The ALJ presented Ray’s RFC to the vocational expert,\nwho concluded that Ray could work as a school bus moni-\ntor—not as he had performed the job, but as it is performed\nin the national economy. At the hearing, Ray questioned the\nvocational expert about the required level of language devel-\nopment for that position. The vocational expert confirmed\nthat a requirement of the job, as it is generally performed, is\nthe ability to “write compound and complex sentences, using\ncursive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjec-\ntives and adverbs.”\n\fNo. 18-2229 5\n\n At the hearing and in a supplemental brief, Ray argued\nthat his previous position as a bus monitor for disabled\nschoolchildren was a composite job—that is, one that com-\nbines “significant elements of two or more occupations and,\nas such, ha[s] no counterpart in the [Dictionary of Occupa-\ntional Titles],” Social Security Ruling 82-61. His job, Ray ar-\ngued, involved substantial activities from both the school bus\nmonitor and child care attendant positions as they are de-\nscribed in the DOT. Ray questioned the vocational expert on\nthis subject, but the testimony is transcribed as “inaudible”\nduring the key responses, and Ray and the agency represent\nthose portions differently.\n In her written decision, however, the ALJ dismissed Ray’s\nargument about composite jobs as “unpersuasive and unsup-\nported” and concluded that Ray could be a bus monitor as\nthat job is generally performed. She did not discuss the undis-\nputed language-development requirements for that position.\nUltimately, based on the vocational expert’s testimony that\nRay could perform his past relevant work, the ALJ concluded\nthat he is not disabled.\n II. ANALYSIS\n We uphold an ALJ’s decision only if substantial evidence\nfrom the record supports her determination. Lanigan v. Ber-\nryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).\n Ray raises four challenges in this appeal: (1) the ALJ erred\nin evaluating his daily activities and medical reports, making\nher credibility determination patently wrong; (2) the ALJ\nerred in concluding that he could perform his past relevant\nwork because his bus-monitor job was a composite job, which\nprecludes a finding at step four; (3) the ALJ erred in finding\n\f6 No. 18-2229\n\nthat he could do the bus-monitor job as generally performed\nbecause he does not meet the necessary General Educational\nDevelopment Level; and (4) the ALJ erred in assessing his\nmental impairments by finding them not severe and by not\nincluding any limitations on concentration, persistence, and\npace in his RFC.\n With respect to the adverse credibility determination, this\nis the rare case in which the claimant can overcome the “con-\nsiderable deference” we afford such findings unless they are\n“patently wrong,” Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir.\n2009). Specifically, the ALJ erroneously evaluated Ray’s\nsymptoms and daily activities, misinterpreted medical evi-\ndence, and failed to ask why he skipped some appointments.\n In assessing Ray’s back and hip pain, the ALJ acknowl-\nedged that Ray had a herniating disc, degenerative disc and\njoint disease of the lower lumber spine, a herniated nucleus\npulpous, and chronic pain syndrome. But to support her de-\ntermination that these impairments “are not as limiting as he\nalleged,” she cited irrelevant records from treatment he re-\nceived for a staph infection and she noted that his extremities\nwere not fractured, tender, or swollen. The connection be-\ntween those characteristics and Ray’s alleged pain and re-\nstricted mobility is nowhere explained. She also mischaracter-\nized Dr. Fish’s report, writing that the straight-leg raise test\nwas negative when the opposite was true.\n The ALJ also improperly emphasized Ray’s lack of follow-\nup on a recommended spine evaluation and his difficulty\nwith medication compliance. Within five years, Ray missed\ntwo follow-up appointments, one for his heart and one for his\nspine. When the ALJ asked him about the missed cardiology\nappointment, he explained that he was uninsured at the time\n\fNo. 18-2229 7\n\nand could not afford it. Although the record showed that Ray\nhad repeatedly lost his health insurance, the ALJ did not ask\nhim about his missed spine appointment and instead as-\nsumed that he did not attend because his symptoms were not\nserious. That was reversible error; an ALJ must not draw in-\nferences about a claimant’s lack of treatment without explor-\ning the reasons for the inaction. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d\n834, 840 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the ALJ bolstered her pre-\nsumption with evidence of Ray’s difficulty with medication\ncompliance, even though, with respect to his pain (as opposed\nto his diabetes), those medical records point to Ray’s credibil-\nity. Ray’s “noncompliance” with his musculoskeletal treat-\nment stemmed from taking pain medication too frequently,\nwhich does not support the ALJ’s inference that he was exag-\ngerating his pain.\n The ALJ also overemphasized Ray’s daily living activities.\nThe only evidence of those activities comes from Ray’s testi-\nmony (which apparently the ALJ credited in this aspect) and\nhis family’s, and it shows that the sum of Ray’s daily routine\ninvolves showering while seated, fixing simple meals, and us-\ning the dishwasher. In between these activities, he sits and\nwatches television. These minimal daily activities do not sup-\nport the ALJ’s finding that Ray exaggerated his symptoms,\nnor do they support the ultimate RFC. See Clifford v. Apfel,\n227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000). Although the ALJ credited\nhim with caring for his son, his son is an adult, and no evi-\ndence reflects the type of “care” that Ray supposedly pro-\nvided. Further, the struggle of living with his son at one point\nsent Ray into a suicidal decompensation.\n Ray is also correct that the ALJ made two technical errors\nat step four that led to the unsupportable conclusion that he\n\f8 No. 18-2229\n\ncould perform his past relevant work as a bus monitor as that\nposition exists in the national economy. First, the ALJ con-\ncluded that Ray’s former position was not a “composite” job\nand, therefore, that it could be assessed with reference to the\nDictionary of Occupational Titles. A claimant is not disabled\nif he can do his past relevant work either in the manner he\nperformed it before the impairment or in the manner it is gen-\nerally performed in the national economy. See Getch v. Astrue,\n539 F.3d 473, 482 (7th Cir. 2008). But if the prior position was\na composite job, then the ALJ may not reference it when de-\ntermining whether a claimant can perform his past job as it is\ngenerally performed. See Programs Operation Manual System\nDI 25005.020; see also Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.\nv. Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003) (POMS serve as guidance\nand “warrant respect”); Cannon v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 970, 975\n(7th Cir. 2000) (same).\n Ray argues that his prior job was a composite job that com-\nbined elements of the school bus monitor and school child-\ncare attendant positions. He cites the vocational expert’s tes-\ntimony to support his position, asserting that the expert testi-\nfied that his bus monitor position was a composite job. The\nagency, for its part, asserts that the expert testified to the op-\nposite. Because key parts of the vocational expert’s testimony\nare marked as “[inaudible],” his opinion is not clear. But a re-\nview of the duties of a school child-care attendant bolsters\nRay’s point:\n Attends to personal needs of handicapped children\n while in school to receive specialized academic and\n physical training: Wheels handicapped children to\n classes, lunchrooms, treatment rooms, and other ar-\n eas of building. Secures children in equipment, such as\n chairs, slings, or stretchers, and places or hoists\n\fNo. 18-2229 9\n\n children into baths or pools. Monitors children using\n life support equipment to detect indications of mal-\n functioning of equipment and calls for medical as-\n sistance when needed. Helps children to walk, board\n buses, put on prosthetic appliances, eat, dress, bathe,\n and perform other physical activities as their needs\n require.\nU.S. Dep’t of Lab., 1 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 258\n(4th ed. 1991) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the du-\nties of a school bus monitor are:\n Monitors conduct of students on school bus to main-\n tain discipline and safety: Directs loading of stu-\n dents on bus to prevent congestion and unsafe con-\n ditions. Rides school bus to prevent altercations be-\n tween students and damage to bus. Participates in\n school bus safety drills. May disembark from school\n bus at railroad crossings and clear bus across tracks.\nId. at 269.\n Here, the ALJ concluded that Ray’s previous bus-monitor\njob was not a composite job because his work matched the\nDOT description “in all but the exertional requirements.” But\nRay’s testimony (the only evidence of his job duties) demon-\nstrates that as a bus monitor he performed significant ele-\nments of the childcare-attendant job, like assisting the stu-\ndents in boarding buses and securing them in their equipment\nand chairs. The DOT description of the bus-monitor job does\nnot include these duties, and the vocational expert’s testi-\nmony is ambiguous. Thus, substantial evidence does not sup-\nport the ALJ’s conclusion that Ray’s previous job was not a\ncomposite job.\n\f10 No. 18-2229\n\n Relatedly, Ray argues that the ALJ erred further by con-\ncluding that he could work as a bus monitor as the job is gen-\nerally performed despite his lacking the necessary General\nEducational Development Level for that job. The bus-monitor\nposition requires at least a Language Development Level 2,\nwhich expects that employees will be able to, among other\nthings, “[w]rite compound and complex sentences, using cur-\nsive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjectives\nand adverbs”; “[r]ead adventure stories and comic books,\nlooking up unfamiliar words in dictionary for meaning,\nspelling, and pronunciation”; and “[r]ead instructions for as-\nsembling model cars and airplanes.” U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 2 Dic-\ntionary of Occupational Titles 1011 (4th ed. 1991). No evi-\ndence supports the ALJ’s implied finding that Ray has these\nskills.\n To the contrary, Ray testified that he does not fill out his\nown checks or paperwork because he misspells words and\nthat he can barely read a newspaper article, a limitation con-\nfirmed in Dr. Zera’s evaluation. When a vocational expert’s\ntestimony that a claimant can perform a job conflicts with the\nclaimant’s ability to meet the job’s listed requirements in the\nDOT, then the ALJ must resolve that conflict before relying on\nthe testimony to support her disability findings. See Social Se-\ncurity Ruling 00-4p; Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir.\n2016); Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). The\nALJ’s failure to do that here, along with the other errors at\nstep four, warrants remand. See Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672,\n678 (7th Cir. 2009) (cumulative effect of multiple errors war-\nranted remand).\n Finally, Ray argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his\nmental limitations, first by finding them not severe at step two\n\fNo. 18-2229 11\n\nand later by not including any limitations on concentration,\npersistence, and pace in the RFC. To some extent, Ray is mis-\ntaken. Step two is merely a threshold inquiry; so long as one\nof a claimant’s limitations is found to be severe, error at that\nstep is harmless. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.\n2012). Either way, the ALJ must later consider the limitations\nimposed by all impairments, severe and non-severe. 20 C.F.R.\n§ 404.1523; Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 423 (7th Cir. 2010).\nNevertheless, the ALJ based the RFC on her flawed credibility\nfinding, which led her to discredit the opinions of the two\nagency experts who concluded that Ray had a severe mental\nimpairment. Therefore, the ALJ will have to revisit her assess-\nment of Ray’s mental impairments in any case.\n Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND to\nthe district court with instructions to remand the case to the\nagency for further proceedings.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2229\\nDANNY J. RAY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL,\\nActing Commissioner of Social Security,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division\\n No. 1:17-cv-01322 — Matthew P. Brookman, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n PER CURIAM. Danny Ray applied for Supplemental Secu-\\nrity Income and Disability Insurance Benefits based on a host\\nof physical disorders and mental conditions. An administra-\\ntive law judge found that Ray was severely impaired by most\\nof his physical conditions, but she denied benefits after find-\\ning that he could perform his past relevant work as a school\\n\\f2 No. 18-2229\\n\\nbus monitor. Ray challenges that finding, arguing that the ALJ\\nerroneously discredited him, failed to treat his prior job as\\n“composite,” and improperly assessed his functional abilities\\ncompared to the job requirements for a bus monitor in the\\ngeneral economy. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s deci-\\nsion. We agree with Ray and vacate the judgment.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Ray lives with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney dis-\\nease, degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and depression.\\nWhen his conditions worsened, he began working gradually\\neasier jobs, from janitor to forklift operator to bus monitor for\\nchildren with special needs, until eventually he gave up his\\nemployment entirely. As a bus monitor, he would lift disa-\\nbled children into their seats on the bus, strap down wheel-\\nchairs, and monitor the children’s behavior. He ultimately\\nquit because it was too painful for his hands, feet, and hips.\\n Ray receives medical care for his physical impairments but\\nhas been noncompliant with some treatments, mostly in rela-\\ntion to his diabetes. He struggles to remember to test his\\nblood-glucose levels, eat healthfully, and take insulin. Doc-\\ntors who treat Ray’s back condition also have noted that he\\ntakes more pain medication than the prescribed amount.\\n In November 2013, Ray applied for social security bene-\\nfits. During the review process, two consulting state-agency\\npsychologists and an examining clinical psychologist,\\nDr. Zera, evaluated his functioning. The consulting psycholo-\\ngists both concluded that Ray is moderately limited in his\\nability to maintain attention and concentration for extended\\nperiods but is not significantly limited in any other aspect of\\nconcentration, persistence, or pace. Dr. Zera determined that\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 3\\n\\nRay has an anxiety disorder and learning disorder, noting his\\n“difficulty reading and poor math skills.” Ray also met with\\nDr. Fish, an agency physician, who determined that Ray’s ma-\\njor functional impairment is exertional tolerance. Dr. Fish\\nnoted a positive result from a supine straight-leg test, which\\nreflects lumbar nerve root compression, though the less-sen-\\nsitive seated test was negative.1\\n The agency denied Ray’s applications initially and upon\\nreconsideration, and his case proceeded to a hearing with an\\nALJ. At the hearing, Ray testified—and his mother and girl-\\nfriend corroborated with written statements—that his daily\\nactivities include taking his medication, making himself three\\nsimple meals, watching television, using the dishwasher, and\\nshowering (while using a shower seat). Outside of these tasks,\\nhe sits and watches television. Ray occasionally does laundry\\nif reminded, and he had the laundry machines moved from\\nthe basement to the first floor of his house because the stairs\\nwere difficult for him. Once per week, he goes grocery shop-\\nping with the assistance of an electric cart. When he did not\\nhave family to drive him, the hospital provided him a bus\\npass because he is physically incapable of walking home.\\n In addition to his physical impairments, Ray has limited\\nintellect. He testified that he completed eight grades of special\\neducation, but he struggles to read and write. Although he\\nwill occasionally purchase a newspaper, it takes time for him\\nto make sense of what he sees. Because of his limitations, his\\n\\n\\n 1 See Alon Rabin, et al., The Sensitivity of the Seated Straight-Leg Raise\\nTest Compared with the Supine Straight-Leg Raise Test in Patients Presenting\\nwith Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Lumbar Nerve Root Compression,\\n88 PHYSICAL MED. & REHAB. 840, 842 (2007).\\n\\f4 No. 18-2229\\n\\nmother or girlfriend must write his checks and complete his\\npaperwork.\\n In her decision, the ALJ analyzed Ray’s application based\\non the five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and\\nfound him not disabled. She determined that he is not en-\\ngaged in substantial gainful employment (step one) and that\\nhe has severe impairments of diabetes mellitus, obesity, de-\\ngenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, coronary ar-\\ntery disease, kidney disease, hypertension, and a history of\\natrial fibrillation (step two). But his impairments, she con-\\ncluded, do not meet a listing (step three).\\n The ALJ determined that Ray has the residual functional\\ncapacity (“RFC”) to perform light work (lifting ten to twenty\\npounds) and to stand or walk for six hours. She also found\\nthat he is able to “understand, remember, and carry out semi-\\nskilled tasks” and “attend to tasks for a sufficient period in\\norder to complete tasks.” Regarding Ray’s limitations, the\\nALJ found him only “partially credible,” largely based on the\\nnotion that, if his symptoms were as severe as alleged, his\\ndaily activities would be more restricted and he would be\\nmore compliant with his prescribed treatments.\\n The ALJ presented Ray’s RFC to the vocational expert,\\nwho concluded that Ray could work as a school bus moni-\\ntor—not as he had performed the job, but as it is performed\\nin the national economy. At the hearing, Ray questioned the\\nvocational expert about the required level of language devel-\\nopment for that position. The vocational expert confirmed\\nthat a requirement of the job, as it is generally performed, is\\nthe ability to “write compound and complex sentences, using\\ncursive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjec-\\ntives and adverbs.”\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 5\\n\\n At the hearing and in a supplemental brief, Ray argued\\nthat his previous position as a bus monitor for disabled\\nschoolchildren was a composite job—that is, one that com-\\nbines “significant elements of two or more occupations and,\\nas such, ha[s] no counterpart in the [Dictionary of Occupa-\\ntional Titles],” Social Security Ruling 82-61. His job, Ray ar-\\ngued, involved substantial activities from both the school bus\\nmonitor and child care attendant positions as they are de-\\nscribed in the DOT. Ray questioned the vocational expert on\\nthis subject, but the testimony is transcribed as “inaudible”\\nduring the key responses, and Ray and the agency represent\\nthose portions differently.\\n In her written decision, however, the ALJ dismissed Ray’s\\nargument about composite jobs as “unpersuasive and unsup-\\nported” and concluded that Ray could be a bus monitor as\\nthat job is generally performed. She did not discuss the undis-\\nputed language-development requirements for that position.\\nUltimately, based on the vocational expert’s testimony that\\nRay could perform his past relevant work, the ALJ concluded\\nthat he is not disabled.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We uphold an ALJ’s decision only if substantial evidence\\nfrom the record supports her determination. Lanigan v. Ber-\\nryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Ray raises four challenges in this appeal: (1) the ALJ erred\\nin evaluating his daily activities and medical reports, making\\nher credibility determination patently wrong; (2) the ALJ\\nerred in concluding that he could perform his past relevant\\nwork because his bus-monitor job was a composite job, which\\nprecludes a finding at step four; (3) the ALJ erred in finding\\n\\f6 No. 18-2229\\n\\nthat he could do the bus-monitor job as generally performed\\nbecause he does not meet the necessary General Educational\\nDevelopment Level; and (4) the ALJ erred in assessing his\\nmental impairments by finding them not severe and by not\\nincluding any limitations on concentration, persistence, and\\npace in his RFC.\\n With respect to the adverse credibility determination, this\\nis the rare case in which the claimant can overcome the “con-\\nsiderable deference” we afford such findings unless they are\\n“patently wrong,” Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir.\\n2009). Specifically, the ALJ erroneously evaluated Ray’s\\nsymptoms and daily activities, misinterpreted medical evi-\\ndence, and failed to ask why he skipped some appointments.\\n In assessing Ray’s back and hip pain, the ALJ acknowl-\\nedged that Ray had a herniating disc, degenerative disc and\\njoint disease of the lower lumber spine, a herniated nucleus\\npulpous, and chronic pain syndrome. But to support her de-\\ntermination that these impairments “are not as limiting as he\\nalleged,” she cited irrelevant records from treatment he re-\\nceived for a staph infection and she noted that his extremities\\nwere not fractured, tender, or swollen. The connection be-\\ntween those characteristics and Ray’s alleged pain and re-\\nstricted mobility is nowhere explained. She also mischaracter-\\nized Dr. Fish’s report, writing that the straight-leg raise test\\nwas negative when the opposite was true.\\n The ALJ also improperly emphasized Ray’s lack of follow-\\nup on a recommended spine evaluation and his difficulty\\nwith medication compliance. Within five years, Ray missed\\ntwo follow-up appointments, one for his heart and one for his\\nspine. When the ALJ asked him about the missed cardiology\\nappointment, he explained that he was uninsured at the time\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 7\\n\\nand could not afford it. Although the record showed that Ray\\nhad repeatedly lost his health insurance, the ALJ did not ask\\nhim about his missed spine appointment and instead as-\\nsumed that he did not attend because his symptoms were not\\nserious. That was reversible error; an ALJ must not draw in-\\nferences about a claimant’s lack of treatment without explor-\\ning the reasons for the inaction. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d\\n834, 840 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the ALJ bolstered her pre-\\nsumption with evidence of Ray’s difficulty with medication\\ncompliance, even though, with respect to his pain (as opposed\\nto his diabetes), those medical records point to Ray’s credibil-\\nity. Ray’s “noncompliance” with his musculoskeletal treat-\\nment stemmed from taking pain medication too frequently,\\nwhich does not support the ALJ’s inference that he was exag-\\ngerating his pain.\\n The ALJ also overemphasized Ray’s daily living activities.\\nThe only evidence of those activities comes from Ray’s testi-\\nmony (which apparently the ALJ credited in this aspect) and\\nhis family’s, and it shows that the sum of Ray’s daily routine\\ninvolves showering while seated, fixing simple meals, and us-\\ning the dishwasher. In between these activities, he sits and\\nwatches television. These minimal daily activities do not sup-\\nport the ALJ’s finding that Ray exaggerated his symptoms,\\nnor do they support the ultimate RFC. See Clifford v. Apfel,\\n227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000). Although the ALJ credited\\nhim with caring for his son, his son is an adult, and no evi-\\ndence reflects the type of “care” that Ray supposedly pro-\\nvided. Further, the struggle of living with his son at one point\\nsent Ray into a suicidal decompensation.\\n Ray is also correct that the ALJ made two technical errors\\nat step four that led to the unsupportable conclusion that he\\n\\f8 No. 18-2229\\n\\ncould perform his past relevant work as a bus monitor as that\\nposition exists in the national economy. First, the ALJ con-\\ncluded that Ray’s former position was not a “composite” job\\nand, therefore, that it could be assessed with reference to the\\nDictionary of Occupational Titles. A claimant is not disabled\\nif he can do his past relevant work either in the manner he\\nperformed it before the impairment or in the manner it is gen-\\nerally performed in the national economy. See Getch v. Astrue,\\n539 F.3d 473, 482 (7th Cir. 2008). But if the prior position was\\na composite job, then the ALJ may not reference it when de-\\ntermining whether a claimant can perform his past job as it is\\ngenerally performed. See Programs Operation Manual System\\nDI 25005.020; see also Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.\\nv. Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003) (POMS serve as guidance\\nand “warrant respect”); Cannon v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 970, 975\\n(7th Cir. 2000) (same).\\n Ray argues that his prior job was a composite job that com-\\nbined elements of the school bus monitor and school child-\\ncare attendant positions. He cites the vocational expert’s tes-\\ntimony to support his position, asserting that the expert testi-\\nfied that his bus monitor position was a composite job. The\\nagency, for its part, asserts that the expert testified to the op-\\nposite. Because key parts of the vocational expert’s testimony\\nare marked as “[inaudible],” his opinion is not clear. But a re-\\nview of the duties of a school child-care attendant bolsters\\nRay’s point:\\n Attends to personal needs of handicapped children\\n while in school to receive specialized academic and\\n physical training: Wheels handicapped children to\\n classes, lunchrooms, treatment rooms, and other ar-\\n eas of building. Secures children in equipment, such as\\n chairs, slings, or stretchers, and places or hoists\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 9\\n\\n children into baths or pools. Monitors children using\\n life support equipment to detect indications of mal-\\n functioning of equipment and calls for medical as-\\n sistance when needed. Helps children to walk, board\\n buses, put on prosthetic appliances, eat, dress, bathe,\\n and perform other physical activities as their needs\\n require.\\nU.S. Dep’t of Lab., 1 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 258\\n(4th ed. 1991) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the du-\\nties of a school bus monitor are:\\n Monitors conduct of students on school bus to main-\\n tain discipline and safety: Directs loading of stu-\\n dents on bus to prevent congestion and unsafe con-\\n ditions. Rides school bus to prevent altercations be-\\n tween students and damage to bus. Participates in\\n school bus safety drills. May disembark from school\\n bus at railroad crossings and clear bus across tracks.\\nId. at 269.\\n Here, the ALJ concluded that Ray’s previous bus-monitor\\njob was not a composite job because his work matched the\\nDOT description “in all but the exertional requirements.” But\\nRay’s testimony (the only evidence of his job duties) demon-\\nstrates that as a bus monitor he performed significant ele-\\nments of the childcare-attendant job, like assisting the stu-\\ndents in boarding buses and securing them in their equipment\\nand chairs. The DOT description of the bus-monitor job does\\nnot include these duties, and the vocational expert’s testi-\\nmony is ambiguous. Thus, substantial evidence does not sup-\\nport the ALJ’s conclusion that Ray’s previous job was not a\\ncomposite job.\\n\\f10 No. 18-2229\\n\\n Relatedly, Ray argues that the ALJ erred further by con-\\ncluding that he could work as a bus monitor as the job is gen-\\nerally performed despite his lacking the necessary General\\nEducational Development Level for that job. The bus-monitor\\nposition requires at least a Language Development Level 2,\\nwhich expects that employees will be able to, among other\\nthings, “[w]rite compound and complex sentences, using cur-\\nsive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjectives\\nand adverbs”; “[r]ead adventure stories and comic books,\\nlooking up unfamiliar words in dictionary for meaning,\\nspelling, and pronunciation”; and “[r]ead instructions for as-\\nsembling model cars and airplanes.” U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 2 Dic-\\ntionary of Occupational Titles 1011 (4th ed. 1991). No evi-\\ndence supports the ALJ’s implied finding that Ray has these\\nskills.\\n To the contrary, Ray testified that he does not fill out his\\nown checks or paperwork because he misspells words and\\nthat he can barely read a newspaper article, a limitation con-\\nfirmed in Dr. Zera’s evaluation. When a vocational expert’s\\ntestimony that a claimant can perform a job conflicts with the\\nclaimant’s ability to meet the job’s listed requirements in the\\nDOT, then the ALJ must resolve that conflict before relying on\\nthe testimony to support her disability findings. See Social Se-\\ncurity Ruling 00-4p; Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir.\\n2016); Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). The\\nALJ’s failure to do that here, along with the other errors at\\nstep four, warrants remand. See Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672,\\n678 (7th Cir. 2009) (cumulative effect of multiple errors war-\\nranted remand).\\n Finally, Ray argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his\\nmental limitations, first by finding them not severe at step two\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 11\\n\\nand later by not including any limitations on concentration,\\npersistence, and pace in the RFC. To some extent, Ray is mis-\\ntaken. Step two is merely a threshold inquiry; so long as one\\nof a claimant’s limitations is found to be severe, error at that\\nstep is harmless. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.\\n2012). Either way, the ALJ must later consider the limitations\\nimposed by all impairments, severe and non-severe. 20 C.F.R.\\n§ 404.1523; Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 423 (7th Cir. 2010).\\nNevertheless, the ALJ based the RFC on her flawed credibility\\nfinding, which led her to discredit the opinions of the two\\nagency experts who concluded that Ray had a severe mental\\nimpairment. Therefore, the ALJ will have to revisit her assess-\\nment of Ray’s mental impairments in any case.\\n Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND to\\nthe district court with instructions to remand the case to the\\nagency for further proceedings.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":695,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589938,"string":"4,589,938"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward BOLIAUX, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Edward Boliaux"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1322"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Wood, Easterbrook, Eve\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-1322\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nEDWARD BOLIAUX,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 CR 115 — Manish S. Shah, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ST. EVE,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Between 2002 and 2008 Ed-\\nward Boliaux operated EMC Automotive, a used-car dealer-\\nship, in Joliet, Illinois. He borrowed money from three lend-\\ners, using inventory as security. Most loans were secured by\\nthe cars’ certificates of title, a device called floorplanning.\\nBecause there is supposed to be only one title certificate per\\ncar, the dealer cannot transfer good title to a customer with-\\n\\f2 No. 18-1322\\n\\nout paying the lender. Although lenders may allow sales to\\nprecede payment, they demand that the money be held in\\ntrust until the loan is retired. But beginning in 2007 Boliaux\\npersuaded state officials to issue duplicate certificates of title\\non the pretense that the originals had been lost. He used\\nthese to obtain multiple loans against single vehicles, exceed-\\ning the cars’ market value and leaving the lenders under-\\nsecured. He also began to sell cars without using the pro-\\nceeds to repay the loans. After one of the lenders detected\\nthis and impounded the collateral, Boliaux persuaded the\\ncustodian to release eight cars, which he sold for his own\\nbenefit.\\n Deceit continued after EMC Automotive collapsed. In\\nSeptember 2008 Cindy Boliaux, then Edward’s wife, incor-\\nporated Joliet Motors, which Edward operated from the\\npremises formerly occupied by EMC. Joliet Motors received\\ninstallment payments sent by the customers of EMC yet did\\nnot remit them to lenders. Boliaux had trouble borrowing\\nagainst the inventory of his new dealership, and in 2008 and\\n2009 he turned to check kiting.\\n For these and related acts, a jury convicted him of four\\ncounts of wire fraud and six of bank fraud. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343,\\n1344. He has been sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment\\nand three years’ supervised release.\\n Boliaux contends that the evidence was insufficient—on\\nthe wire fraud counts principally because he did not trans-\\nmit anything by wire, and on the bank fraud counts princi-\\npally because no one from the banks testified that the banks\\nlost money. The district court addressed these and other con-\\ntentions when denying Boliaux’s motion under Fed. R. Crim.\\nP. 29:\\n\\fNo. 18-1322 3\\n\\n Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see United\\n States v. Washington, 184 F.3d 653, 657 (7th Cir. 1999), the evi-\\n dence demonstrated that Boliaux obtained financing from lend-\\n ers through materially false representations, and he perpetuated\\n his scheme through the concealment of material facts. Boliaux\\n argues that the evidence amounted to, at most, a disjointed se-\\n ries of immaterial breaches of contract. Neither the facts nor the\\n law support this argument. Obtaining money through a scheme\\n intended to cheat others is a crime whether or not it is also slop-\\n py business or breach of contract. It suffices to note that Boliaux\\n lied to obtain duplicate titles for cars that he knew were financed\\n by one lender, and used the duplicate titles to obtain additional\\n financing from a second lender—thereby compromising the se-\\n curity interests of both lenders. Later, he forged lien releases\\n purportedly from GMAC, and with those releases, obtained car\\n titles that he used to secure more financing—thereby cheating\\n those lenders by concealing GMAC’s interests. According to in-\\n dustry representatives, clear title to a vehicle that was part of\\n floorplan financing was material to lenders, even when liens\\n were not individually filed and notwithstanding the breadth of\\n the collateral securing financing. The evidence of defendant’s\\n control over the car dealerships was sufficient to prove his inten-\\n tional participation in the scheme. His intent to defraud was\\n manifest in his false statements and forgeries, and in his con-\\n cealment of facts associated with Joliet Motors. The charged wire\\n transmissions traveled across state lines—from Joliet Motors in\\n Illinois and routed through Pennsylvania or Ohio, and they ad-\\n vanced the scheme to defraud the lenders because they were\\n payments for a vehicle that had been sold to the detriment of the\\n lender’s interests. The evidence of Boliaux’s supervision of Joliet\\n Motors, and his involvement in the payment-processing system,\\n was sufficient to make the wire transmissions a foreseeable con-\\n sequence of his scheme.\\n Testimony from the victim banks was not necessary to support a\\n conviction on the bank fraud counts. The bank records, coupled\\n with the explanatory testimony of expert witness Wolverton\\n (who testified under Rule 702 without objection) and the evi-\\n dence of Boliaux’s control over the bank accounts, demonstrated\\n\\f4 No. 18-1322\\n\\n the risk of loss to the banks and Boliaux’s intent to deceive\\n through check kiting.\\n The evidence was not just sufficient, it was overwhelming, and\\n defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquijal under Rule 29 is\\n denied.\\n\\nIt is not necessary to say more about the sufficiency of the\\nevidence. Later we discuss the decision by Boliaux’s lawyer\\nto omit from his brief the district court’s analysis of this sub-\\nject.\\n Boliaux asked the district judge to instruct the jury that it\\nhad to agree, unanimously, how he carried out his scheme to\\ndefraud. The judge properly declined. Each wire-fraud\\ncount of the indictment charged a single scheme to defraud\\nimplemented in 17 ways (obtaining duplicate titles by falsely\\nasserting that others had been lost, pledging the same car to\\nmultiple lenders, selling cars without repaying the loans,\\nand so on). The means used to carry out a fraudulent scheme\\nare not separate elements requiring unanimity. See, e.g.,\\nRichardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817 (1999). Boliaux\\nseeks to avoid this rule by contending that the wire-fraud\\ncharges are duplicitous—in other words, that each count re-\\nally charges multiple crimes, rather than one crime com-\\nmijed through multiple acts. The district court addressed\\nthis argument, too, in the order from which we have already\\nquoted:\\n Boliaux raises an untimely argument concerning duplicity, but\\n he never challenged the indictment under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(i) and\\n offers no excuse for this failure. The claim is forfeited, but in any\\n event, there was no duplicity, much less prejudicial duplicity.\\n Each wire fraud count alleged one execution of a single scheme\\n to defraud with a variety of alleged means. No unanimity with\\n respect to those means was required. United States v. Daniel, 749\\n F.3d 608, 614 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n\\fNo. 18-1322 5\\n\\nThus Boliaux lost in the district court on two grounds: forfei-\\nture and the merits. His opening brief on appeal ignores the\\nforfeiture. If you lose in the district court on multiple\\ngrounds, you must contest all on appeal; prevailing on one\\nwon’t suffice. After the prosecutor relied on the forfeiture\\nruling, Boliaux finally addressed it in his reply brief. That’s\\ntoo late—and as it happens too lijle as well.\\n Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) lists more\\nthan a dozen defenses or arguments that must be presented\\nbefore trial, so that any error may be corrected (and the\\nprosecutor can appeal an adverse decision without encoun-\\ntering a problem under the Double Jeopardy Clause). See\\nUnited States v. Nixon, 901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018).\\nDuplicity is among them. There is an escape hatch: “If a par-\\nty does not meet the deadline for making a Rule 12(b)(3) mo-\\ntion, the motion is untimely. But a court may consider the\\ndefense, objection, or request if the party shows good\\ncause.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3). The district judge stated\\nthat Boliaux has not offered an excuse for his delay. That\\nremains true. The reply brief does not contend that Boliaux\\nhad “good cause”—or indeed any cause—for raising a du-\\nplicity argument only in mid-trial. The decision may well\\nhave been strategic, deferring majers until it was too late for\\nthe prosecutor either to amend the indictment or appeal\\nfrom an adverse decision. This is exactly the kind of strategy\\nthat Rule 12(b)(3) is designed to block.\\n Not content with holding back a duplicity argument until\\nmid-trial, Boliaux withheld a multiplicity argument until his\\nopening appellate brief. Multiplicity means charging a single\\ncrime in multiple counts. Boliaux tells us that he commijed\\nat most one bank fraud, no majer how many checks he\\n\\f6 No. 18-1322\\n\\nwrote against insufficient funds, making the six bank-fraud\\ncounts multiplicitous. Yet multiplicity is among the majers\\nthat must be raised before trial. Fed. R. Crim. P.\\n12(b)(3)(B)(ii). Consideration of the argument now depends\\nnot only on a demonstration of plain error (the standard for\\nall contentions first presented on appeal) but also on a\\ndemonstration of good cause. Boliaux does not argue that he\\nhad good cause—or any cause at all—for delay in making\\nthis argument. We therefore do not consider it.\\n One evidentiary contention requires a few words. John\\nBrincat appeared for the prosecution as an expert witness on\\nthe topic of floorplanning. He explained to the jury how\\nthese loans are made and why lenders’ risk is increased by\\nthe existence of multiple title certificates and multiple loans\\nagainst a single vehicle. The district judge found this testi-\\nmony proper under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Still, Boliaux contends\\nthat the testimony should have been barred because Brincat\\nacted as both an expert witness and a fact witness, a dual\\nrole that may leave the jury confused about how to treat the\\ntestimony. See, e.g., United States v. Je@, 908 F.3d 252, 267–68\\n(7th Cir. 2018). The district court disagreed, stating: “The tes-\\ntimony elicited by the government from witness Brincat was\\nlimited to his role as an industry expert and did not stray\\ninto fact-witness territory”. Boliaux contests this by observ-\\ning that Brincat testified about how the whole floorplan-\\nlending industry works, and Boliaux insists that because\\nBrincat is employed by Automotive Finance Corp. (AFC),\\none of the defrauded lenders, the jury likely would have un-\\nderstood him to be a fact witness.\\n The district judge did not abuse his discretion by per-\\nmijing Brincat to testify. He did not describe any special fea-\\n\\fNo. 18-1322 7\\n\\ntures of AFC’s practices or any of the dealings between AFC\\nand Boliaux. The jury surely understood Brincat to be testi-\\nfying exclusively as an expert. We are surprised that the\\nprosecutor would present Brincat as an expert, enabling the\\ndefense to paint a vital witness as biased, but puzzling deci-\\nsions do not make evidence inadmissible.\\n Boliaux presents a few additional arguments, which do\\nnot require discussion. They have been considered and are\\nrejected.\\n We promised earlier to return to how Boliaux has treated\\nthe district court’s explanations for its decisions. Circuit Rule\\n30(b)(1) requires every appellant to include, in an appendix\\nto the brief, “[c]opies of any … opinions, orders, or oral rul-\\nings in the case that address the issues sought to be raised.”\\nCircuit Rule 30(d) adds: “The appendix to each appellant’s\\nbrief shall contain a statement that all of the materials re-\\nquired by parts (a) and (b) of this rule are included.”\\nBoliaux’s brief, signed by Andrew S. Gable of Chicago, con-\\ntains the required certification. But it is false. The appendix\\nomits the district court’s statement of its reasons for finding\\nthe evidence sufficient, finding the duplicity argument (and\\nthe proposed unanimity instruction) forfeited under Rule\\n12(b), and permijing Brincat to testify. (The opinion ad-\\ndresses other topics as well.) The appendix also omits sub-\\nstantial parts of the district judge’s mid-trial discussions of\\nthese and other issues. Was Gable hoping that we would not\\ndiscover those rulings?\\n False representations to the court of appeals have conse-\\nquences. In civil litigation a false certificate of compliance\\nwith Circuit Rule 30(a) and (b) leads to summary affirmance\\nor dismissal of the appeal. See, e.g., Urso v. United States, 72\\n\\f8 No. 18-1322\\n\\nF.3d 59, 61–62 (7th Cir. 1995); Mortell v. Mortell Co., 887 F.2d\\n1322, 1327 (7th Cir. 1989); Teitelbaum v. Curtis Publishing Co.,\\n314 F.2d 94, 95–96 (7th Cir. 1963); Sparrow v. Yellow Cab Co.,\\n273 F.2d 1, 4 (7th Cir. 1959); Chicago & Eastern Illinois Ry. v.\\nSouthern Ry., 261 F.2d 394, 400 n.7 (7th Cir. 1958). The client\\nthen may be able to recover from counsel for malpractice.\\nWe concluded in United States v. Smith, 953 F.2d 1060, 1068\\n(7th Cir. 1992), that this would not be appropriate in criminal\\ncases, where defendants have difficulty monitoring their\\nlawyers’ performance—and where dismissal of the appeal or\\nsummary affirmance would lead straight to a decision find-\\ning that counsel had furnished ineffective assistance, which\\nwould authorize a new appeal. It is best in criminal cases to\\ngive the defendant plenary appellate review, as we have\\ndone, and penalize the lawyer directly. See In re Galvan, 92\\nF.3d 582 (7th Cir. 1996). See also Guentchev v. INS, 77 F.3d\\n1036 (7th Cir. 1996) (same approach in immigration law).\\n Galvan established $1,000 as the presumptive fine for a\\nviolation of Circuit Rule 30 in a criminal case. 92 F.3d at 584–\\n85. See also, e.g., United States v. Evans, 270 F.3d 1076, 1085\\n(7th Cir. 2001). Adjusting for inflation, $1,000 in 1996 is\\nequivalent to $1,597 today. This implies that the presumptive\\nfine should become $1,600.\\n Counsel has 14 days to show cause why he should not be\\nfined $1,600, and reprimanded, for his violation of Circuit\\nRule 30(b) and his false statement under Circuit Rule 30(d).\\n The judgment is affirmed, and an order to show cause\\nwill be issued.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4367191/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589938/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward BOLIAUX, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-1322\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\nEDWARD BOLIAUX,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16 CR 115 — Manish S. Shah, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ST. EVE,\nCircuit Judges.\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Between 2002 and 2008 Ed-\nward Boliaux operated EMC Automotive, a used-car dealer-\nship, in Joliet, Illinois. He borrowed money from three lend-\ners, using inventory as security. Most loans were secured by\nthe cars’ certificates of title, a device called floorplanning.\nBecause there is supposed to be only one title certificate per\ncar, the dealer cannot transfer good title to a customer with-\n\f2 No. 18-1322\n\nout paying the lender. Although lenders may allow sales to\nprecede payment, they demand that the money be held in\ntrust until the loan is retired. But beginning in 2007 Boliaux\npersuaded state officials to issue duplicate certificates of title\non the pretense that the originals had been lost. He used\nthese to obtain multiple loans against single vehicles, exceed-\ning the cars’ market value and leaving the lenders under-\nsecured. He also began to sell cars without using the pro-\nceeds to repay the loans. After one of the lenders detected\nthis and impounded the collateral, Boliaux persuaded the\ncustodian to release eight cars, which he sold for his own\nbenefit.\n Deceit continued after EMC Automotive collapsed. In\nSeptember 2008 Cindy Boliaux, then Edward’s wife, incor-\nporated Joliet Motors, which Edward operated from the\npremises formerly occupied by EMC. Joliet Motors received\ninstallment payments sent by the customers of EMC yet did\nnot remit them to lenders. Boliaux had trouble borrowing\nagainst the inventory of his new dealership, and in 2008 and\n2009 he turned to check kiting.\n For these and related acts, a jury convicted him of four\ncounts of wire fraud and six of bank fraud. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343,\n1344. He has been sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment\nand three years’ supervised release.\n Boliaux contends that the evidence was insufficient—on\nthe wire fraud counts principally because he did not trans-\nmit anything by wire, and on the bank fraud counts princi-\npally because no one from the banks testified that the banks\nlost money. The district court addressed these and other con-\ntentions when denying Boliaux’s motion under Fed. R. Crim.\nP. 29:\n\fNo. 18-1322 3\n\n Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see United\n States v. Washington, 184 F.3d 653, 657 (7th Cir. 1999), the evi-\n dence demonstrated that Boliaux obtained financing from lend-\n ers through materially false representations, and he perpetuated\n his scheme through the concealment of material facts. Boliaux\n argues that the evidence amounted to, at most, a disjointed se-\n ries of immaterial breaches of contract. Neither the facts nor the\n law support this argument. Obtaining money through a scheme\n intended to cheat others is a crime whether or not it is also slop-\n py business or breach of contract. It suffices to note that Boliaux\n lied to obtain duplicate titles for cars that he knew were financed\n by one lender, and used the duplicate titles to obtain additional\n financing from a second lender—thereby compromising the se-\n curity interests of both lenders. Later, he forged lien releases\n purportedly from GMAC, and with those releases, obtained car\n titles that he used to secure more financing—thereby cheating\n those lenders by concealing GMAC’s interests. According to in-\n dustry representatives, clear title to a vehicle that was part of\n floorplan financing was material to lenders, even when liens\n were not individually filed and notwithstanding the breadth of\n the collateral securing financing. The evidence of defendant’s\n control over the car dealerships was sufficient to prove his inten-\n tional participation in the scheme. His intent to defraud was\n manifest in his false statements and forgeries, and in his con-\n cealment of facts associated with Joliet Motors. The charged wire\n transmissions traveled across state lines—from Joliet Motors in\n Illinois and routed through Pennsylvania or Ohio, and they ad-\n vanced the scheme to defraud the lenders because they were\n payments for a vehicle that had been sold to the detriment of the\n lender’s interests. The evidence of Boliaux’s supervision of Joliet\n Motors, and his involvement in the payment-processing system,\n was sufficient to make the wire transmissions a foreseeable con-\n sequence of his scheme.\n Testimony from the victim banks was not necessary to support a\n conviction on the bank fraud counts. The bank records, coupled\n with the explanatory testimony of expert witness Wolverton\n (who testified under Rule 702 without objection) and the evi-\n dence of Boliaux’s control over the bank accounts, demonstrated\n\f4 No. 18-1322\n\n the risk of loss to the banks and Boliaux’s intent to deceive\n through check kiting.\n The evidence was not just sufficient, it was overwhelming, and\n defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquijal under Rule 29 is\n denied.\n\nIt is not necessary to say more about the sufficiency of the\nevidence. Later we discuss the decision by Boliaux’s lawyer\nto omit from his brief the district court’s analysis of this sub-\nject.\n Boliaux asked the district judge to instruct the jury that it\nhad to agree, unanimously, how he carried out his scheme to\ndefraud. The judge properly declined. Each wire-fraud\ncount of the indictment charged a single scheme to defraud\nimplemented in 17 ways (obtaining duplicate titles by falsely\nasserting that others had been lost, pledging the same car to\nmultiple lenders, selling cars without repaying the loans,\nand so on). The means used to carry out a fraudulent scheme\nare not separate elements requiring unanimity. See, e.g.,\nRichardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817 (1999). Boliaux\nseeks to avoid this rule by contending that the wire-fraud\ncharges are duplicitous—in other words, that each count re-\nally charges multiple crimes, rather than one crime com-\nmijed through multiple acts. The district court addressed\nthis argument, too, in the order from which we have already\nquoted:\n Boliaux raises an untimely argument concerning duplicity, but\n he never challenged the indictment under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(i) and\n offers no excuse for this failure. The claim is forfeited, but in any\n event, there was no duplicity, much less prejudicial duplicity.\n Each wire fraud count alleged one execution of a single scheme\n to defraud with a variety of alleged means. No unanimity with\n respect to those means was required. United States v. Daniel, 749\n F.3d 608, 614 (7th Cir. 2014).\n\fNo. 18-1322 5\n\nThus Boliaux lost in the district court on two grounds: forfei-\nture and the merits. His opening brief on appeal ignores the\nforfeiture. If you lose in the district court on multiple\ngrounds, you must contest all on appeal; prevailing on one\nwon’t suffice. After the prosecutor relied on the forfeiture\nruling, Boliaux finally addressed it in his reply brief. That’s\ntoo late—and as it happens too lijle as well.\n Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) lists more\nthan a dozen defenses or arguments that must be presented\nbefore trial, so that any error may be corrected (and the\nprosecutor can appeal an adverse decision without encoun-\ntering a problem under the Double Jeopardy Clause). See\nUnited States v. Nixon, 901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018).\nDuplicity is among them. There is an escape hatch: “If a par-\nty does not meet the deadline for making a Rule 12(b)(3) mo-\ntion, the motion is untimely. But a court may consider the\ndefense, objection, or request if the party shows good\ncause.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3). The district judge stated\nthat Boliaux has not offered an excuse for his delay. That\nremains true. The reply brief does not contend that Boliaux\nhad “good cause”—or indeed any cause—for raising a du-\nplicity argument only in mid-trial. The decision may well\nhave been strategic, deferring majers until it was too late for\nthe prosecutor either to amend the indictment or appeal\nfrom an adverse decision. This is exactly the kind of strategy\nthat Rule 12(b)(3) is designed to block.\n Not content with holding back a duplicity argument until\nmid-trial, Boliaux withheld a multiplicity argument until his\nopening appellate brief. Multiplicity means charging a single\ncrime in multiple counts. Boliaux tells us that he commijed\nat most one bank fraud, no majer how many checks he\n\f6 No. 18-1322\n\nwrote against insufficient funds, making the six bank-fraud\ncounts multiplicitous. Yet multiplicity is among the majers\nthat must be raised before trial. Fed. R. Crim. P.\n12(b)(3)(B)(ii). Consideration of the argument now depends\nnot only on a demonstration of plain error (the standard for\nall contentions first presented on appeal) but also on a\ndemonstration of good cause. Boliaux does not argue that he\nhad good cause—or any cause at all—for delay in making\nthis argument. We therefore do not consider it.\n One evidentiary contention requires a few words. John\nBrincat appeared for the prosecution as an expert witness on\nthe topic of floorplanning. He explained to the jury how\nthese loans are made and why lenders’ risk is increased by\nthe existence of multiple title certificates and multiple loans\nagainst a single vehicle. The district judge found this testi-\nmony proper under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Still, Boliaux contends\nthat the testimony should have been barred because Brincat\nacted as both an expert witness and a fact witness, a dual\nrole that may leave the jury confused about how to treat the\ntestimony. See, e.g., United States v. Je@, 908 F.3d 252, 267–68\n(7th Cir. 2018). The district court disagreed, stating: “The tes-\ntimony elicited by the government from witness Brincat was\nlimited to his role as an industry expert and did not stray\ninto fact-witness territory”. Boliaux contests this by observ-\ning that Brincat testified about how the whole floorplan-\nlending industry works, and Boliaux insists that because\nBrincat is employed by Automotive Finance Corp. (AFC),\none of the defrauded lenders, the jury likely would have un-\nderstood him to be a fact witness.\n The district judge did not abuse his discretion by per-\nmijing Brincat to testify. He did not describe any special fea-\n\fNo. 18-1322 7\n\ntures of AFC’s practices or any of the dealings between AFC\nand Boliaux. The jury surely understood Brincat to be testi-\nfying exclusively as an expert. We are surprised that the\nprosecutor would present Brincat as an expert, enabling the\ndefense to paint a vital witness as biased, but puzzling deci-\nsions do not make evidence inadmissible.\n Boliaux presents a few additional arguments, which do\nnot require discussion. They have been considered and are\nrejected.\n We promised earlier to return to how Boliaux has treated\nthe district court’s explanations for its decisions. Circuit Rule\n30(b)(1) requires every appellant to include, in an appendix\nto the brief, “[c]opies of any … opinions, orders, or oral rul-\nings in the case that address the issues sought to be raised.”\nCircuit Rule 30(d) adds: “The appendix to each appellant’s\nbrief shall contain a statement that all of the materials re-\nquired by parts (a) and (b) of this rule are included.”\nBoliaux’s brief, signed by Andrew S. Gable of Chicago, con-\ntains the required certification. But it is false. The appendix\nomits the district court’s statement of its reasons for finding\nthe evidence sufficient, finding the duplicity argument (and\nthe proposed unanimity instruction) forfeited under Rule\n12(b), and permijing Brincat to testify. (The opinion ad-\ndresses other topics as well.) The appendix also omits sub-\nstantial parts of the district judge’s mid-trial discussions of\nthese and other issues. Was Gable hoping that we would not\ndiscover those rulings?\n False representations to the court of appeals have conse-\nquences. In civil litigation a false certificate of compliance\nwith Circuit Rule 30(a) and (b) leads to summary affirmance\nor dismissal of the appeal. See, e.g., Urso v. United States, 72\n\f8 No. 18-1322\n\nF.3d 59, 61–62 (7th Cir. 1995); Mortell v. Mortell Co., 887 F.2d\n1322, 1327 (7th Cir. 1989); Teitelbaum v. Curtis Publishing Co.,\n314 F.2d 94, 95–96 (7th Cir. 1963); Sparrow v. Yellow Cab Co.,\n273 F.2d 1, 4 (7th Cir. 1959); Chicago & Eastern Illinois Ry. v.\nSouthern Ry., 261 F.2d 394, 400 n.7 (7th Cir. 1958). The client\nthen may be able to recover from counsel for malpractice.\nWe concluded in United States v. Smith, 953 F.2d 1060, 1068\n(7th Cir. 1992), that this would not be appropriate in criminal\ncases, where defendants have difficulty monitoring their\nlawyers’ performance—and where dismissal of the appeal or\nsummary affirmance would lead straight to a decision find-\ning that counsel had furnished ineffective assistance, which\nwould authorize a new appeal. It is best in criminal cases to\ngive the defendant plenary appellate review, as we have\ndone, and penalize the lawyer directly. See In re Galvan, 92\nF.3d 582 (7th Cir. 1996). See also Guentchev v. INS, 77 F.3d\n1036 (7th Cir. 1996) (same approach in immigration law).\n Galvan established $1,000 as the presumptive fine for a\nviolation of Circuit Rule 30 in a criminal case. 92 F.3d at 584–\n85. See also, e.g., United States v. Evans, 270 F.3d 1076, 1085\n(7th Cir. 2001). Adjusting for inflation, $1,000 in 1996 is\nequivalent to $1,597 today. This implies that the presumptive\nfine should become $1,600.\n Counsel has 14 days to show cause why he should not be\nfined $1,600, and reprimanded, for his violation of Circuit\nRule 30(b) and his false statement under Circuit Rule 30(d).\n The judgment is affirmed, and an order to show cause\nwill be issued.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward BOLIAUX, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-1322\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nEDWARD BOLIAUX,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 CR 115 — Manish S. Shah, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ST. EVE,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Between 2002 and 2008 Ed-\\nward Boliaux operated EMC Automotive, a used-car dealer-\\nship, in Joliet, Illinois. He borrowed money from three lend-\\ners, using inventory as security. Most loans were secured by\\nthe cars’ certificates of title, a device called floorplanning.\\nBecause there is supposed to be only one title certificate per\\ncar, the dealer cannot transfer good title to a customer with-\\n\\f2 No. 18-1322\\n\\nout paying the lender. Although lenders may allow sales to\\nprecede payment, they demand that the money be held in\\ntrust until the loan is retired. But beginning in 2007 Boliaux\\npersuaded state officials to issue duplicate certificates of title\\non the pretense that the originals had been lost. He used\\nthese to obtain multiple loans against single vehicles, exceed-\\ning the cars’ market value and leaving the lenders under-\\nsecured. He also began to sell cars without using the pro-\\nceeds to repay the loans. After one of the lenders detected\\nthis and impounded the collateral, Boliaux persuaded the\\ncustodian to release eight cars, which he sold for his own\\nbenefit.\\n Deceit continued after EMC Automotive collapsed. In\\nSeptember 2008 Cindy Boliaux, then Edward’s wife, incor-\\nporated Joliet Motors, which Edward operated from the\\npremises formerly occupied by EMC. Joliet Motors received\\ninstallment payments sent by the customers of EMC yet did\\nnot remit them to lenders. Boliaux had trouble borrowing\\nagainst the inventory of his new dealership, and in 2008 and\\n2009 he turned to check kiting.\\n For these and related acts, a jury convicted him of four\\ncounts of wire fraud and six of bank fraud. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343,\\n1344. He has been sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment\\nand three years’ supervised release.\\n Boliaux contends that the evidence was insufficient—on\\nthe wire fraud counts principally because he did not trans-\\nmit anything by wire, and on the bank fraud counts princi-\\npally because no one from the banks testified that the banks\\nlost money. The district court addressed these and other con-\\ntentions when denying Boliaux’s motion under Fed. R. Crim.\\nP. 29:\\n\\fNo. 18-1322 3\\n\\n Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see United\\n States v. Washington, 184 F.3d 653, 657 (7th Cir. 1999), the evi-\\n dence demonstrated that Boliaux obtained financing from lend-\\n ers through materially false representations, and he perpetuated\\n his scheme through the concealment of material facts. Boliaux\\n argues that the evidence amounted to, at most, a disjointed se-\\n ries of immaterial breaches of contract. Neither the facts nor the\\n law support this argument. Obtaining money through a scheme\\n intended to cheat others is a crime whether or not it is also slop-\\n py business or breach of contract. It suffices to note that Boliaux\\n lied to obtain duplicate titles for cars that he knew were financed\\n by one lender, and used the duplicate titles to obtain additional\\n financing from a second lender—thereby compromising the se-\\n curity interests of both lenders. Later, he forged lien releases\\n purportedly from GMAC, and with those releases, obtained car\\n titles that he used to secure more financing—thereby cheating\\n those lenders by concealing GMAC’s interests. According to in-\\n dustry representatives, clear title to a vehicle that was part of\\n floorplan financing was material to lenders, even when liens\\n were not individually filed and notwithstanding the breadth of\\n the collateral securing financing. The evidence of defendant’s\\n control over the car dealerships was sufficient to prove his inten-\\n tional participation in the scheme. His intent to defraud was\\n manifest in his false statements and forgeries, and in his con-\\n cealment of facts associated with Joliet Motors. The charged wire\\n transmissions traveled across state lines—from Joliet Motors in\\n Illinois and routed through Pennsylvania or Ohio, and they ad-\\n vanced the scheme to defraud the lenders because they were\\n payments for a vehicle that had been sold to the detriment of the\\n lender’s interests. The evidence of Boliaux’s supervision of Joliet\\n Motors, and his involvement in the payment-processing system,\\n was sufficient to make the wire transmissions a foreseeable con-\\n sequence of his scheme.\\n Testimony from the victim banks was not necessary to support a\\n conviction on the bank fraud counts. The bank records, coupled\\n with the explanatory testimony of expert witness Wolverton\\n (who testified under Rule 702 without objection) and the evi-\\n dence of Boliaux’s control over the bank accounts, demonstrated\\n\\f4 No. 18-1322\\n\\n the risk of loss to the banks and Boliaux’s intent to deceive\\n through check kiting.\\n The evidence was not just sufficient, it was overwhelming, and\\n defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquijal under Rule 29 is\\n denied.\\n\\nIt is not necessary to say more about the sufficiency of the\\nevidence. Later we discuss the decision by Boliaux’s lawyer\\nto omit from his brief the district court’s analysis of this sub-\\nject.\\n Boliaux asked the district judge to instruct the jury that it\\nhad to agree, unanimously, how he carried out his scheme to\\ndefraud. The judge properly declined. Each wire-fraud\\ncount of the indictment charged a single scheme to defraud\\nimplemented in 17 ways (obtaining duplicate titles by falsely\\nasserting that others had been lost, pledging the same car to\\nmultiple lenders, selling cars without repaying the loans,\\nand so on). The means used to carry out a fraudulent scheme\\nare not separate elements requiring unanimity. See, e.g.,\\nRichardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817 (1999). Boliaux\\nseeks to avoid this rule by contending that the wire-fraud\\ncharges are duplicitous—in other words, that each count re-\\nally charges multiple crimes, rather than one crime com-\\nmijed through multiple acts. The district court addressed\\nthis argument, too, in the order from which we have already\\nquoted:\\n Boliaux raises an untimely argument concerning duplicity, but\\n he never challenged the indictment under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(i) and\\n offers no excuse for this failure. The claim is forfeited, but in any\\n event, there was no duplicity, much less prejudicial duplicity.\\n Each wire fraud count alleged one execution of a single scheme\\n to defraud with a variety of alleged means. No unanimity with\\n respect to those means was required. United States v. Daniel, 749\\n F.3d 608, 614 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n\\fNo. 18-1322 5\\n\\nThus Boliaux lost in the district court on two grounds: forfei-\\nture and the merits. His opening brief on appeal ignores the\\nforfeiture. If you lose in the district court on multiple\\ngrounds, you must contest all on appeal; prevailing on one\\nwon’t suffice. After the prosecutor relied on the forfeiture\\nruling, Boliaux finally addressed it in his reply brief. That’s\\ntoo late—and as it happens too lijle as well.\\n Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) lists more\\nthan a dozen defenses or arguments that must be presented\\nbefore trial, so that any error may be corrected (and the\\nprosecutor can appeal an adverse decision without encoun-\\ntering a problem under the Double Jeopardy Clause). See\\nUnited States v. Nixon, 901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018).\\nDuplicity is among them. There is an escape hatch: “If a par-\\nty does not meet the deadline for making a Rule 12(b)(3) mo-\\ntion, the motion is untimely. But a court may consider the\\ndefense, objection, or request if the party shows good\\ncause.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3). The district judge stated\\nthat Boliaux has not offered an excuse for his delay. That\\nremains true. The reply brief does not contend that Boliaux\\nhad “good cause”—or indeed any cause—for raising a du-\\nplicity argument only in mid-trial. The decision may well\\nhave been strategic, deferring majers until it was too late for\\nthe prosecutor either to amend the indictment or appeal\\nfrom an adverse decision. This is exactly the kind of strategy\\nthat Rule 12(b)(3) is designed to block.\\n Not content with holding back a duplicity argument until\\nmid-trial, Boliaux withheld a multiplicity argument until his\\nopening appellate brief. Multiplicity means charging a single\\ncrime in multiple counts. Boliaux tells us that he commijed\\nat most one bank fraud, no majer how many checks he\\n\\f6 No. 18-1322\\n\\nwrote against insufficient funds, making the six bank-fraud\\ncounts multiplicitous. Yet multiplicity is among the majers\\nthat must be raised before trial. Fed. R. Crim. P.\\n12(b)(3)(B)(ii). Consideration of the argument now depends\\nnot only on a demonstration of plain error (the standard for\\nall contentions first presented on appeal) but also on a\\ndemonstration of good cause. Boliaux does not argue that he\\nhad good cause—or any cause at all—for delay in making\\nthis argument. We therefore do not consider it.\\n One evidentiary contention requires a few words. John\\nBrincat appeared for the prosecution as an expert witness on\\nthe topic of floorplanning. He explained to the jury how\\nthese loans are made and why lenders’ risk is increased by\\nthe existence of multiple title certificates and multiple loans\\nagainst a single vehicle. The district judge found this testi-\\nmony proper under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Still, Boliaux contends\\nthat the testimony should have been barred because Brincat\\nacted as both an expert witness and a fact witness, a dual\\nrole that may leave the jury confused about how to treat the\\ntestimony. See, e.g., United States v. Je@, 908 F.3d 252, 267–68\\n(7th Cir. 2018). The district court disagreed, stating: “The tes-\\ntimony elicited by the government from witness Brincat was\\nlimited to his role as an industry expert and did not stray\\ninto fact-witness territory”. Boliaux contests this by observ-\\ning that Brincat testified about how the whole floorplan-\\nlending industry works, and Boliaux insists that because\\nBrincat is employed by Automotive Finance Corp. (AFC),\\none of the defrauded lenders, the jury likely would have un-\\nderstood him to be a fact witness.\\n The district judge did not abuse his discretion by per-\\nmijing Brincat to testify. He did not describe any special fea-\\n\\fNo. 18-1322 7\\n\\ntures of AFC’s practices or any of the dealings between AFC\\nand Boliaux. The jury surely understood Brincat to be testi-\\nfying exclusively as an expert. We are surprised that the\\nprosecutor would present Brincat as an expert, enabling the\\ndefense to paint a vital witness as biased, but puzzling deci-\\nsions do not make evidence inadmissible.\\n Boliaux presents a few additional arguments, which do\\nnot require discussion. They have been considered and are\\nrejected.\\n We promised earlier to return to how Boliaux has treated\\nthe district court’s explanations for its decisions. Circuit Rule\\n30(b)(1) requires every appellant to include, in an appendix\\nto the brief, “[c]opies of any … opinions, orders, or oral rul-\\nings in the case that address the issues sought to be raised.”\\nCircuit Rule 30(d) adds: “The appendix to each appellant’s\\nbrief shall contain a statement that all of the materials re-\\nquired by parts (a) and (b) of this rule are included.”\\nBoliaux’s brief, signed by Andrew S. Gable of Chicago, con-\\ntains the required certification. But it is false. The appendix\\nomits the district court’s statement of its reasons for finding\\nthe evidence sufficient, finding the duplicity argument (and\\nthe proposed unanimity instruction) forfeited under Rule\\n12(b), and permijing Brincat to testify. (The opinion ad-\\ndresses other topics as well.) The appendix also omits sub-\\nstantial parts of the district judge’s mid-trial discussions of\\nthese and other issues. Was Gable hoping that we would not\\ndiscover those rulings?\\n False representations to the court of appeals have conse-\\nquences. In civil litigation a false certificate of compliance\\nwith Circuit Rule 30(a) and (b) leads to summary affirmance\\nor dismissal of the appeal. See, e.g., Urso v. United States, 72\\n\\f8 No. 18-1322\\n\\nF.3d 59, 61–62 (7th Cir. 1995); Mortell v. Mortell Co., 887 F.2d\\n1322, 1327 (7th Cir. 1989); Teitelbaum v. Curtis Publishing Co.,\\n314 F.2d 94, 95–96 (7th Cir. 1963); Sparrow v. Yellow Cab Co.,\\n273 F.2d 1, 4 (7th Cir. 1959); Chicago & Eastern Illinois Ry. v.\\nSouthern Ry., 261 F.2d 394, 400 n.7 (7th Cir. 1958). The client\\nthen may be able to recover from counsel for malpractice.\\nWe concluded in United States v. Smith, 953 F.2d 1060, 1068\\n(7th Cir. 1992), that this would not be appropriate in criminal\\ncases, where defendants have difficulty monitoring their\\nlawyers’ performance—and where dismissal of the appeal or\\nsummary affirmance would lead straight to a decision find-\\ning that counsel had furnished ineffective assistance, which\\nwould authorize a new appeal. It is best in criminal cases to\\ngive the defendant plenary appellate review, as we have\\ndone, and penalize the lawyer directly. See In re Galvan, 92\\nF.3d 582 (7th Cir. 1996). See also Guentchev v. INS, 77 F.3d\\n1036 (7th Cir. 1996) (same approach in immigration law).\\n Galvan established $1,000 as the presumptive fine for a\\nviolation of Circuit Rule 30 in a criminal case. 92 F.3d at 584–\\n85. See also, e.g., United States v. Evans, 270 F.3d 1076, 1085\\n(7th Cir. 2001). Adjusting for inflation, $1,000 in 1996 is\\nequivalent to $1,597 today. This implies that the presumptive\\nfine should become $1,600.\\n Counsel has 14 days to show cause why he should not be\\nfined $1,600, and reprimanded, for his violation of Circuit\\nRule 30(b) and his false statement under Circuit Rule 30(d).\\n The judgment is affirmed, and an order to show cause\\nwill be issued.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":696,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589939,"string":"4,589,939"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2229"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2229\\nDANNY J. RAY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL,\\nActing Commissioner of Social Security,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division\\n No. 1:17-cv-01322 — Matthew P. Brookman, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n PER CURIAM. Danny Ray applied for Supplemental Secu-\\nrity Income and Disability Insurance Benefits based on a host\\nof physical disorders and mental conditions. An administra-\\ntive law judge found that Ray was severely impaired by most\\nof his physical conditions, but she denied benefits after find-\\ning that he could perform his past relevant work as a school\\n\\f2 No. 18-2229\\n\\nbus monitor. Ray challenges that finding, arguing that the ALJ\\nerroneously discredited him, failed to treat his prior job as\\n“composite,” and improperly assessed his functional abilities\\ncompared to the job requirements for a bus monitor in the\\ngeneral economy. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s deci-\\nsion. We agree with Ray and vacate the judgment.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Ray lives with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney dis-\\nease, degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and depression.\\nWhen his conditions worsened, he began working gradually\\neasier jobs, from janitor to forklift operator to bus monitor for\\nchildren with special needs, until eventually he gave up his\\nemployment entirely. As a bus monitor, he would lift disa-\\nbled children into their seats on the bus, strap down wheel-\\nchairs, and monitor the children’s behavior. He ultimately\\nquit because it was too painful for his hands, feet, and hips.\\n Ray receives medical care for his physical impairments but\\nhas been noncompliant with some treatments, mostly in rela-\\ntion to his diabetes. He struggles to remember to test his\\nblood-glucose levels, eat healthfully, and take insulin. Doc-\\ntors who treat Ray’s back condition also have noted that he\\ntakes more pain medication than the prescribed amount.\\n In November 2013, Ray applied for social security bene-\\nfits. During the review process, two consulting state-agency\\npsychologists and an examining clinical psychologist,\\nDr. Zera, evaluated his functioning. The consulting psycholo-\\ngists both concluded that Ray is moderately limited in his\\nability to maintain attention and concentration for extended\\nperiods but is not significantly limited in any other aspect of\\nconcentration, persistence, or pace. Dr. Zera determined that\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 3\\n\\nRay has an anxiety disorder and learning disorder, noting his\\n“difficulty reading and poor math skills.” Ray also met with\\nDr. Fish, an agency physician, who determined that Ray’s ma-\\njor functional impairment is exertional tolerance. Dr. Fish\\nnoted a positive result from a supine straight-leg test, which\\nreflects lumbar nerve root compression, though the less-sen-\\nsitive seated test was negative.1\\n The agency denied Ray’s applications initially and upon\\nreconsideration, and his case proceeded to a hearing with an\\nALJ. At the hearing, Ray testified—and his mother and girl-\\nfriend corroborated with written statements—that his daily\\nactivities include taking his medication, making himself three\\nsimple meals, watching television, using the dishwasher, and\\nshowering (while using a shower seat). Outside of these tasks,\\nhe sits and watches television. Ray occasionally does laundry\\nif reminded, and he had the laundry machines moved from\\nthe basement to the first floor of his house because the stairs\\nwere difficult for him. Once per week, he goes grocery shop-\\nping with the assistance of an electric cart. When he did not\\nhave family to drive him, the hospital provided him a bus\\npass because he is physically incapable of walking home.\\n In addition to his physical impairments, Ray has limited\\nintellect. He testified that he completed eight grades of special\\neducation, but he struggles to read and write. Although he\\nwill occasionally purchase a newspaper, it takes time for him\\nto make sense of what he sees. Because of his limitations, his\\n\\n\\n 1 See Alon Rabin, et al., The Sensitivity of the Seated Straight-Leg Raise\\nTest Compared with the Supine Straight-Leg Raise Test in Patients Presenting\\nwith Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Lumbar Nerve Root Compression,\\n88 PHYSICAL MED. & REHAB. 840, 842 (2007).\\n\\f4 No. 18-2229\\n\\nmother or girlfriend must write his checks and complete his\\npaperwork.\\n In her decision, the ALJ analyzed Ray’s application based\\non the five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and\\nfound him not disabled. She determined that he is not en-\\ngaged in substantial gainful employment (step one) and that\\nhe has severe impairments of diabetes mellitus, obesity, de-\\ngenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, coronary ar-\\ntery disease, kidney disease, hypertension, and a history of\\natrial fibrillation (step two). But his impairments, she con-\\ncluded, do not meet a listing (step three).\\n The ALJ determined that Ray has the residual functional\\ncapacity (“RFC”) to perform light work (lifting ten to twenty\\npounds) and to stand or walk for six hours. She also found\\nthat he is able to “understand, remember, and carry out semi-\\nskilled tasks” and “attend to tasks for a sufficient period in\\norder to complete tasks.” Regarding Ray’s limitations, the\\nALJ found him only “partially credible,” largely based on the\\nnotion that, if his symptoms were as severe as alleged, his\\ndaily activities would be more restricted and he would be\\nmore compliant with his prescribed treatments.\\n The ALJ presented Ray’s RFC to the vocational expert,\\nwho concluded that Ray could work as a school bus moni-\\ntor—not as he had performed the job, but as it is performed\\nin the national economy. At the hearing, Ray questioned the\\nvocational expert about the required level of language devel-\\nopment for that position. The vocational expert confirmed\\nthat a requirement of the job, as it is generally performed, is\\nthe ability to “write compound and complex sentences, using\\ncursive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjec-\\ntives and adverbs.”\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 5\\n\\n At the hearing and in a supplemental brief, Ray argued\\nthat his previous position as a bus monitor for disabled\\nschoolchildren was a composite job—that is, one that com-\\nbines “significant elements of two or more occupations and,\\nas such, ha[s] no counterpart in the [Dictionary of Occupa-\\ntional Titles],” Social Security Ruling 82-61. His job, Ray ar-\\ngued, involved substantial activities from both the school bus\\nmonitor and child care attendant positions as they are de-\\nscribed in the DOT. Ray questioned the vocational expert on\\nthis subject, but the testimony is transcribed as “inaudible”\\nduring the key responses, and Ray and the agency represent\\nthose portions differently.\\n In her written decision, however, the ALJ dismissed Ray’s\\nargument about composite jobs as “unpersuasive and unsup-\\nported” and concluded that Ray could be a bus monitor as\\nthat job is generally performed. She did not discuss the undis-\\nputed language-development requirements for that position.\\nUltimately, based on the vocational expert’s testimony that\\nRay could perform his past relevant work, the ALJ concluded\\nthat he is not disabled.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We uphold an ALJ’s decision only if substantial evidence\\nfrom the record supports her determination. Lanigan v. Ber-\\nryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Ray raises four challenges in this appeal: (1) the ALJ erred\\nin evaluating his daily activities and medical reports, making\\nher credibility determination patently wrong; (2) the ALJ\\nerred in concluding that he could perform his past relevant\\nwork because his bus-monitor job was a composite job, which\\nprecludes a finding at step four; (3) the ALJ erred in finding\\n\\f6 No. 18-2229\\n\\nthat he could do the bus-monitor job as generally performed\\nbecause he does not meet the necessary General Educational\\nDevelopment Level; and (4) the ALJ erred in assessing his\\nmental impairments by finding them not severe and by not\\nincluding any limitations on concentration, persistence, and\\npace in his RFC.\\n With respect to the adverse credibility determination, this\\nis the rare case in which the claimant can overcome the “con-\\nsiderable deference” we afford such findings unless they are\\n“patently wrong,” Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir.\\n2009). Specifically, the ALJ erroneously evaluated Ray’s\\nsymptoms and daily activities, misinterpreted medical evi-\\ndence, and failed to ask why he skipped some appointments.\\n In assessing Ray’s back and hip pain, the ALJ acknowl-\\nedged that Ray had a herniating disc, degenerative disc and\\njoint disease of the lower lumber spine, a herniated nucleus\\npulpous, and chronic pain syndrome. But to support her de-\\ntermination that these impairments “are not as limiting as he\\nalleged,” she cited irrelevant records from treatment he re-\\nceived for a staph infection and she noted that his extremities\\nwere not fractured, tender, or swollen. The connection be-\\ntween those characteristics and Ray’s alleged pain and re-\\nstricted mobility is nowhere explained. She also mischaracter-\\nized Dr. Fish’s report, writing that the straight-leg raise test\\nwas negative when the opposite was true.\\n The ALJ also improperly emphasized Ray’s lack of follow-\\nup on a recommended spine evaluation and his difficulty\\nwith medication compliance. Within five years, Ray missed\\ntwo follow-up appointments, one for his heart and one for his\\nspine. When the ALJ asked him about the missed cardiology\\nappointment, he explained that he was uninsured at the time\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 7\\n\\nand could not afford it. Although the record showed that Ray\\nhad repeatedly lost his health insurance, the ALJ did not ask\\nhim about his missed spine appointment and instead as-\\nsumed that he did not attend because his symptoms were not\\nserious. That was reversible error; an ALJ must not draw in-\\nferences about a claimant’s lack of treatment without explor-\\ning the reasons for the inaction. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d\\n834, 840 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the ALJ bolstered her pre-\\nsumption with evidence of Ray’s difficulty with medication\\ncompliance, even though, with respect to his pain (as opposed\\nto his diabetes), those medical records point to Ray’s credibil-\\nity. Ray’s “noncompliance” with his musculoskeletal treat-\\nment stemmed from taking pain medication too frequently,\\nwhich does not support the ALJ’s inference that he was exag-\\ngerating his pain.\\n The ALJ also overemphasized Ray’s daily living activities.\\nThe only evidence of those activities comes from Ray’s testi-\\nmony (which apparently the ALJ credited in this aspect) and\\nhis family’s, and it shows that the sum of Ray’s daily routine\\ninvolves showering while seated, fixing simple meals, and us-\\ning the dishwasher. In between these activities, he sits and\\nwatches television. These minimal daily activities do not sup-\\nport the ALJ’s finding that Ray exaggerated his symptoms,\\nnor do they support the ultimate RFC. See Clifford v. Apfel,\\n227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000). Although the ALJ credited\\nhim with caring for his son, his son is an adult, and no evi-\\ndence reflects the type of “care” that Ray supposedly pro-\\nvided. Further, the struggle of living with his son at one point\\nsent Ray into a suicidal decompensation.\\n Ray is also correct that the ALJ made two technical errors\\nat step four that led to the unsupportable conclusion that he\\n\\f8 No. 18-2229\\n\\ncould perform his past relevant work as a bus monitor as that\\nposition exists in the national economy. First, the ALJ con-\\ncluded that Ray’s former position was not a “composite” job\\nand, therefore, that it could be assessed with reference to the\\nDictionary of Occupational Titles. A claimant is not disabled\\nif he can do his past relevant work either in the manner he\\nperformed it before the impairment or in the manner it is gen-\\nerally performed in the national economy. See Getch v. Astrue,\\n539 F.3d 473, 482 (7th Cir. 2008). But if the prior position was\\na composite job, then the ALJ may not reference it when de-\\ntermining whether a claimant can perform his past job as it is\\ngenerally performed. See Programs Operation Manual System\\nDI 25005.020; see also Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.\\nv. Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003) (POMS serve as guidance\\nand “warrant respect”); Cannon v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 970, 975\\n(7th Cir. 2000) (same).\\n Ray argues that his prior job was a composite job that com-\\nbined elements of the school bus monitor and school child-\\ncare attendant positions. He cites the vocational expert’s tes-\\ntimony to support his position, asserting that the expert testi-\\nfied that his bus monitor position was a composite job. The\\nagency, for its part, asserts that the expert testified to the op-\\nposite. Because key parts of the vocational expert’s testimony\\nare marked as “[inaudible],” his opinion is not clear. But a re-\\nview of the duties of a school child-care attendant bolsters\\nRay’s point:\\n Attends to personal needs of handicapped children\\n while in school to receive specialized academic and\\n physical training: Wheels handicapped children to\\n classes, lunchrooms, treatment rooms, and other ar-\\n eas of building. Secures children in equipment, such as\\n chairs, slings, or stretchers, and places or hoists\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 9\\n\\n children into baths or pools. Monitors children using\\n life support equipment to detect indications of mal-\\n functioning of equipment and calls for medical as-\\n sistance when needed. Helps children to walk, board\\n buses, put on prosthetic appliances, eat, dress, bathe,\\n and perform other physical activities as their needs\\n require.\\nU.S. Dep’t of Lab., 1 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 258\\n(4th ed. 1991) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the du-\\nties of a school bus monitor are:\\n Monitors conduct of students on school bus to main-\\n tain discipline and safety: Directs loading of stu-\\n dents on bus to prevent congestion and unsafe con-\\n ditions. Rides school bus to prevent altercations be-\\n tween students and damage to bus. Participates in\\n school bus safety drills. May disembark from school\\n bus at railroad crossings and clear bus across tracks.\\nId. at 269.\\n Here, the ALJ concluded that Ray’s previous bus-monitor\\njob was not a composite job because his work matched the\\nDOT description “in all but the exertional requirements.” But\\nRay’s testimony (the only evidence of his job duties) demon-\\nstrates that as a bus monitor he performed significant ele-\\nments of the childcare-attendant job, like assisting the stu-\\ndents in boarding buses and securing them in their equipment\\nand chairs. The DOT description of the bus-monitor job does\\nnot include these duties, and the vocational expert’s testi-\\nmony is ambiguous. Thus, substantial evidence does not sup-\\nport the ALJ’s conclusion that Ray’s previous job was not a\\ncomposite job.\\n\\f10 No. 18-2229\\n\\n Relatedly, Ray argues that the ALJ erred further by con-\\ncluding that he could work as a bus monitor as the job is gen-\\nerally performed despite his lacking the necessary General\\nEducational Development Level for that job. The bus-monitor\\nposition requires at least a Language Development Level 2,\\nwhich expects that employees will be able to, among other\\nthings, “[w]rite compound and complex sentences, using cur-\\nsive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjectives\\nand adverbs”; “[r]ead adventure stories and comic books,\\nlooking up unfamiliar words in dictionary for meaning,\\nspelling, and pronunciation”; and “[r]ead instructions for as-\\nsembling model cars and airplanes.” U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 2 Dic-\\ntionary of Occupational Titles 1011 (4th ed. 1991). No evi-\\ndence supports the ALJ’s implied finding that Ray has these\\nskills.\\n To the contrary, Ray testified that he does not fill out his\\nown checks or paperwork because he misspells words and\\nthat he can barely read a newspaper article, a limitation con-\\nfirmed in Dr. Zera’s evaluation. When a vocational expert’s\\ntestimony that a claimant can perform a job conflicts with the\\nclaimant’s ability to meet the job’s listed requirements in the\\nDOT, then the ALJ must resolve that conflict before relying on\\nthe testimony to support her disability findings. See Social Se-\\ncurity Ruling 00-4p; Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir.\\n2016); Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). The\\nALJ’s failure to do that here, along with the other errors at\\nstep four, warrants remand. See Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672,\\n678 (7th Cir. 2009) (cumulative effect of multiple errors war-\\nranted remand).\\n Finally, Ray argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his\\nmental limitations, first by finding them not severe at step two\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 11\\n\\nand later by not including any limitations on concentration,\\npersistence, and pace in the RFC. To some extent, Ray is mis-\\ntaken. Step two is merely a threshold inquiry; so long as one\\nof a claimant’s limitations is found to be severe, error at that\\nstep is harmless. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.\\n2012). Either way, the ALJ must later consider the limitations\\nimposed by all impairments, severe and non-severe. 20 C.F.R.\\n§ 404.1523; Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 423 (7th Cir. 2010).\\nNevertheless, the ALJ based the RFC on her flawed credibility\\nfinding, which led her to discredit the opinions of the two\\nagency experts who concluded that Ray had a severe mental\\nimpairment. Therefore, the ALJ will have to revisit her assess-\\nment of Ray’s mental impairments in any case.\\n Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND to\\nthe district court with instructions to remand the case to the\\nagency for further proceedings.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4367192/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589939/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2229\nDANNY J. RAY,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL,\nActing Commissioner of Social Security,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division\n No. 1:17-cv-01322 — Matthew P. Brookman, Magistrate Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit\nJudges.\n PER CURIAM. Danny Ray applied for Supplemental Secu-\nrity Income and Disability Insurance Benefits based on a host\nof physical disorders and mental conditions. An administra-\ntive law judge found that Ray was severely impaired by most\nof his physical conditions, but she denied benefits after find-\ning that he could perform his past relevant work as a school\n\f2 No. 18-2229\n\nbus monitor. Ray challenges that finding, arguing that the ALJ\nerroneously discredited him, failed to treat his prior job as\n“composite,” and improperly assessed his functional abilities\ncompared to the job requirements for a bus monitor in the\ngeneral economy. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s deci-\nsion. We agree with Ray and vacate the judgment.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Ray lives with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney dis-\nease, degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and depression.\nWhen his conditions worsened, he began working gradually\neasier jobs, from janitor to forklift operator to bus monitor for\nchildren with special needs, until eventually he gave up his\nemployment entirely. As a bus monitor, he would lift disa-\nbled children into their seats on the bus, strap down wheel-\nchairs, and monitor the children’s behavior. He ultimately\nquit because it was too painful for his hands, feet, and hips.\n Ray receives medical care for his physical impairments but\nhas been noncompliant with some treatments, mostly in rela-\ntion to his diabetes. He struggles to remember to test his\nblood-glucose levels, eat healthfully, and take insulin. Doc-\ntors who treat Ray’s back condition also have noted that he\ntakes more pain medication than the prescribed amount.\n In November 2013, Ray applied for social security bene-\nfits. During the review process, two consulting state-agency\npsychologists and an examining clinical psychologist,\nDr. Zera, evaluated his functioning. The consulting psycholo-\ngists both concluded that Ray is moderately limited in his\nability to maintain attention and concentration for extended\nperiods but is not significantly limited in any other aspect of\nconcentration, persistence, or pace. Dr. Zera determined that\n\fNo. 18-2229 3\n\nRay has an anxiety disorder and learning disorder, noting his\n“difficulty reading and poor math skills.” Ray also met with\nDr. Fish, an agency physician, who determined that Ray’s ma-\njor functional impairment is exertional tolerance. Dr. Fish\nnoted a positive result from a supine straight-leg test, which\nreflects lumbar nerve root compression, though the less-sen-\nsitive seated test was negative.1\n The agency denied Ray’s applications initially and upon\nreconsideration, and his case proceeded to a hearing with an\nALJ. At the hearing, Ray testified—and his mother and girl-\nfriend corroborated with written statements—that his daily\nactivities include taking his medication, making himself three\nsimple meals, watching television, using the dishwasher, and\nshowering (while using a shower seat). Outside of these tasks,\nhe sits and watches television. Ray occasionally does laundry\nif reminded, and he had the laundry machines moved from\nthe basement to the first floor of his house because the stairs\nwere difficult for him. Once per week, he goes grocery shop-\nping with the assistance of an electric cart. When he did not\nhave family to drive him, the hospital provided him a bus\npass because he is physically incapable of walking home.\n In addition to his physical impairments, Ray has limited\nintellect. He testified that he completed eight grades of special\neducation, but he struggles to read and write. Although he\nwill occasionally purchase a newspaper, it takes time for him\nto make sense of what he sees. Because of his limitations, his\n\n\n 1 See Alon Rabin, et al., The Sensitivity of the Seated Straight-Leg Raise\nTest Compared with the Supine Straight-Leg Raise Test in Patients Presenting\nwith Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Lumbar Nerve Root Compression,\n88 PHYSICAL MED. & REHAB. 840, 842 (2007).\n\f4 No. 18-2229\n\nmother or girlfriend must write his checks and complete his\npaperwork.\n In her decision, the ALJ analyzed Ray’s application based\non the five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and\nfound him not disabled. She determined that he is not en-\ngaged in substantial gainful employment (step one) and that\nhe has severe impairments of diabetes mellitus, obesity, de-\ngenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, coronary ar-\ntery disease, kidney disease, hypertension, and a history of\natrial fibrillation (step two). But his impairments, she con-\ncluded, do not meet a listing (step three).\n The ALJ determined that Ray has the residual functional\ncapacity (“RFC”) to perform light work (lifting ten to twenty\npounds) and to stand or walk for six hours. She also found\nthat he is able to “understand, remember, and carry out semi-\nskilled tasks” and “attend to tasks for a sufficient period in\norder to complete tasks.” Regarding Ray’s limitations, the\nALJ found him only “partially credible,” largely based on the\nnotion that, if his symptoms were as severe as alleged, his\ndaily activities would be more restricted and he would be\nmore compliant with his prescribed treatments.\n The ALJ presented Ray’s RFC to the vocational expert,\nwho concluded that Ray could work as a school bus moni-\ntor—not as he had performed the job, but as it is performed\nin the national economy. At the hearing, Ray questioned the\nvocational expert about the required level of language devel-\nopment for that position. The vocational expert confirmed\nthat a requirement of the job, as it is generally performed, is\nthe ability to “write compound and complex sentences, using\ncursive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjec-\ntives and adverbs.”\n\fNo. 18-2229 5\n\n At the hearing and in a supplemental brief, Ray argued\nthat his previous position as a bus monitor for disabled\nschoolchildren was a composite job—that is, one that com-\nbines “significant elements of two or more occupations and,\nas such, ha[s] no counterpart in the [Dictionary of Occupa-\ntional Titles],” Social Security Ruling 82-61. His job, Ray ar-\ngued, involved substantial activities from both the school bus\nmonitor and child care attendant positions as they are de-\nscribed in the DOT. Ray questioned the vocational expert on\nthis subject, but the testimony is transcribed as “inaudible”\nduring the key responses, and Ray and the agency represent\nthose portions differently.\n In her written decision, however, the ALJ dismissed Ray’s\nargument about composite jobs as “unpersuasive and unsup-\nported” and concluded that Ray could be a bus monitor as\nthat job is generally performed. She did not discuss the undis-\nputed language-development requirements for that position.\nUltimately, based on the vocational expert’s testimony that\nRay could perform his past relevant work, the ALJ concluded\nthat he is not disabled.\n II. ANALYSIS\n We uphold an ALJ’s decision only if substantial evidence\nfrom the record supports her determination. Lanigan v. Ber-\nryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).\n Ray raises four challenges in this appeal: (1) the ALJ erred\nin evaluating his daily activities and medical reports, making\nher credibility determination patently wrong; (2) the ALJ\nerred in concluding that he could perform his past relevant\nwork because his bus-monitor job was a composite job, which\nprecludes a finding at step four; (3) the ALJ erred in finding\n\f6 No. 18-2229\n\nthat he could do the bus-monitor job as generally performed\nbecause he does not meet the necessary General Educational\nDevelopment Level; and (4) the ALJ erred in assessing his\nmental impairments by finding them not severe and by not\nincluding any limitations on concentration, persistence, and\npace in his RFC.\n With respect to the adverse credibility determination, this\nis the rare case in which the claimant can overcome the “con-\nsiderable deference” we afford such findings unless they are\n“patently wrong,” Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir.\n2009). Specifically, the ALJ erroneously evaluated Ray’s\nsymptoms and daily activities, misinterpreted medical evi-\ndence, and failed to ask why he skipped some appointments.\n In assessing Ray’s back and hip pain, the ALJ acknowl-\nedged that Ray had a herniating disc, degenerative disc and\njoint disease of the lower lumber spine, a herniated nucleus\npulpous, and chronic pain syndrome. But to support her de-\ntermination that these impairments “are not as limiting as he\nalleged,” she cited irrelevant records from treatment he re-\nceived for a staph infection and she noted that his extremities\nwere not fractured, tender, or swollen. The connection be-\ntween those characteristics and Ray’s alleged pain and re-\nstricted mobility is nowhere explained. She also mischaracter-\nized Dr. Fish’s report, writing that the straight-leg raise test\nwas negative when the opposite was true.\n The ALJ also improperly emphasized Ray’s lack of follow-\nup on a recommended spine evaluation and his difficulty\nwith medication compliance. Within five years, Ray missed\ntwo follow-up appointments, one for his heart and one for his\nspine. When the ALJ asked him about the missed cardiology\nappointment, he explained that he was uninsured at the time\n\fNo. 18-2229 7\n\nand could not afford it. Although the record showed that Ray\nhad repeatedly lost his health insurance, the ALJ did not ask\nhim about his missed spine appointment and instead as-\nsumed that he did not attend because his symptoms were not\nserious. That was reversible error; an ALJ must not draw in-\nferences about a claimant’s lack of treatment without explor-\ning the reasons for the inaction. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d\n834, 840 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the ALJ bolstered her pre-\nsumption with evidence of Ray’s difficulty with medication\ncompliance, even though, with respect to his pain (as opposed\nto his diabetes), those medical records point to Ray’s credibil-\nity. Ray’s “noncompliance” with his musculoskeletal treat-\nment stemmed from taking pain medication too frequently,\nwhich does not support the ALJ’s inference that he was exag-\ngerating his pain.\n The ALJ also overemphasized Ray’s daily living activities.\nThe only evidence of those activities comes from Ray’s testi-\nmony (which apparently the ALJ credited in this aspect) and\nhis family’s, and it shows that the sum of Ray’s daily routine\ninvolves showering while seated, fixing simple meals, and us-\ning the dishwasher. In between these activities, he sits and\nwatches television. These minimal daily activities do not sup-\nport the ALJ’s finding that Ray exaggerated his symptoms,\nnor do they support the ultimate RFC. See Clifford v. Apfel,\n227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000). Although the ALJ credited\nhim with caring for his son, his son is an adult, and no evi-\ndence reflects the type of “care” that Ray supposedly pro-\nvided. Further, the struggle of living with his son at one point\nsent Ray into a suicidal decompensation.\n Ray is also correct that the ALJ made two technical errors\nat step four that led to the unsupportable conclusion that he\n\f8 No. 18-2229\n\ncould perform his past relevant work as a bus monitor as that\nposition exists in the national economy. First, the ALJ con-\ncluded that Ray’s former position was not a “composite” job\nand, therefore, that it could be assessed with reference to the\nDictionary of Occupational Titles. A claimant is not disabled\nif he can do his past relevant work either in the manner he\nperformed it before the impairment or in the manner it is gen-\nerally performed in the national economy. See Getch v. Astrue,\n539 F.3d 473, 482 (7th Cir. 2008). But if the prior position was\na composite job, then the ALJ may not reference it when de-\ntermining whether a claimant can perform his past job as it is\ngenerally performed. See Programs Operation Manual System\nDI 25005.020; see also Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.\nv. Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003) (POMS serve as guidance\nand “warrant respect”); Cannon v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 970, 975\n(7th Cir. 2000) (same).\n Ray argues that his prior job was a composite job that com-\nbined elements of the school bus monitor and school child-\ncare attendant positions. He cites the vocational expert’s tes-\ntimony to support his position, asserting that the expert testi-\nfied that his bus monitor position was a composite job. The\nagency, for its part, asserts that the expert testified to the op-\nposite. Because key parts of the vocational expert’s testimony\nare marked as “[inaudible],” his opinion is not clear. But a re-\nview of the duties of a school child-care attendant bolsters\nRay’s point:\n Attends to personal needs of handicapped children\n while in school to receive specialized academic and\n physical training: Wheels handicapped children to\n classes, lunchrooms, treatment rooms, and other ar-\n eas of building. Secures children in equipment, such as\n chairs, slings, or stretchers, and places or hoists\n\fNo. 18-2229 9\n\n children into baths or pools. Monitors children using\n life support equipment to detect indications of mal-\n functioning of equipment and calls for medical as-\n sistance when needed. Helps children to walk, board\n buses, put on prosthetic appliances, eat, dress, bathe,\n and perform other physical activities as their needs\n require.\nU.S. Dep’t of Lab., 1 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 258\n(4th ed. 1991) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the du-\nties of a school bus monitor are:\n Monitors conduct of students on school bus to main-\n tain discipline and safety: Directs loading of stu-\n dents on bus to prevent congestion and unsafe con-\n ditions. Rides school bus to prevent altercations be-\n tween students and damage to bus. Participates in\n school bus safety drills. May disembark from school\n bus at railroad crossings and clear bus across tracks.\nId. at 269.\n Here, the ALJ concluded that Ray’s previous bus-monitor\njob was not a composite job because his work matched the\nDOT description “in all but the exertional requirements.” But\nRay’s testimony (the only evidence of his job duties) demon-\nstrates that as a bus monitor he performed significant ele-\nments of the childcare-attendant job, like assisting the stu-\ndents in boarding buses and securing them in their equipment\nand chairs. The DOT description of the bus-monitor job does\nnot include these duties, and the vocational expert’s testi-\nmony is ambiguous. Thus, substantial evidence does not sup-\nport the ALJ’s conclusion that Ray’s previous job was not a\ncomposite job.\n\f10 No. 18-2229\n\n Relatedly, Ray argues that the ALJ erred further by con-\ncluding that he could work as a bus monitor as the job is gen-\nerally performed despite his lacking the necessary General\nEducational Development Level for that job. The bus-monitor\nposition requires at least a Language Development Level 2,\nwhich expects that employees will be able to, among other\nthings, “[w]rite compound and complex sentences, using cur-\nsive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjectives\nand adverbs”; “[r]ead adventure stories and comic books,\nlooking up unfamiliar words in dictionary for meaning,\nspelling, and pronunciation”; and “[r]ead instructions for as-\nsembling model cars and airplanes.” U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 2 Dic-\ntionary of Occupational Titles 1011 (4th ed. 1991). No evi-\ndence supports the ALJ’s implied finding that Ray has these\nskills.\n To the contrary, Ray testified that he does not fill out his\nown checks or paperwork because he misspells words and\nthat he can barely read a newspaper article, a limitation con-\nfirmed in Dr. Zera’s evaluation. When a vocational expert’s\ntestimony that a claimant can perform a job conflicts with the\nclaimant’s ability to meet the job’s listed requirements in the\nDOT, then the ALJ must resolve that conflict before relying on\nthe testimony to support her disability findings. See Social Se-\ncurity Ruling 00-4p; Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir.\n2016); Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). The\nALJ’s failure to do that here, along with the other errors at\nstep four, warrants remand. See Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672,\n678 (7th Cir. 2009) (cumulative effect of multiple errors war-\nranted remand).\n Finally, Ray argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his\nmental limitations, first by finding them not severe at step two\n\fNo. 18-2229 11\n\nand later by not including any limitations on concentration,\npersistence, and pace in the RFC. To some extent, Ray is mis-\ntaken. Step two is merely a threshold inquiry; so long as one\nof a claimant’s limitations is found to be severe, error at that\nstep is harmless. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.\n2012). Either way, the ALJ must later consider the limitations\nimposed by all impairments, severe and non-severe. 20 C.F.R.\n§ 404.1523; Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 423 (7th Cir. 2010).\nNevertheless, the ALJ based the RFC on her flawed credibility\nfinding, which led her to discredit the opinions of the two\nagency experts who concluded that Ray had a severe mental\nimpairment. Therefore, the ALJ will have to revisit her assess-\nment of Ray’s mental impairments in any case.\n Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND to\nthe district court with instructions to remand the case to the\nagency for further proceedings.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2229\\nDANNY J. RAY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nNANCY A. BERRYHILL,\\nActing Commissioner of Social Security,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division\\n No. 1:17-cv-01322 — Matthew P. Brookman, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n PER CURIAM. Danny Ray applied for Supplemental Secu-\\nrity Income and Disability Insurance Benefits based on a host\\nof physical disorders and mental conditions. An administra-\\ntive law judge found that Ray was severely impaired by most\\nof his physical conditions, but she denied benefits after find-\\ning that he could perform his past relevant work as a school\\n\\f2 No. 18-2229\\n\\nbus monitor. Ray challenges that finding, arguing that the ALJ\\nerroneously discredited him, failed to treat his prior job as\\n“composite,” and improperly assessed his functional abilities\\ncompared to the job requirements for a bus monitor in the\\ngeneral economy. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s deci-\\nsion. We agree with Ray and vacate the judgment.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Ray lives with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney dis-\\nease, degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and depression.\\nWhen his conditions worsened, he began working gradually\\neasier jobs, from janitor to forklift operator to bus monitor for\\nchildren with special needs, until eventually he gave up his\\nemployment entirely. As a bus monitor, he would lift disa-\\nbled children into their seats on the bus, strap down wheel-\\nchairs, and monitor the children’s behavior. He ultimately\\nquit because it was too painful for his hands, feet, and hips.\\n Ray receives medical care for his physical impairments but\\nhas been noncompliant with some treatments, mostly in rela-\\ntion to his diabetes. He struggles to remember to test his\\nblood-glucose levels, eat healthfully, and take insulin. Doc-\\ntors who treat Ray’s back condition also have noted that he\\ntakes more pain medication than the prescribed amount.\\n In November 2013, Ray applied for social security bene-\\nfits. During the review process, two consulting state-agency\\npsychologists and an examining clinical psychologist,\\nDr. Zera, evaluated his functioning. The consulting psycholo-\\ngists both concluded that Ray is moderately limited in his\\nability to maintain attention and concentration for extended\\nperiods but is not significantly limited in any other aspect of\\nconcentration, persistence, or pace. Dr. Zera determined that\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 3\\n\\nRay has an anxiety disorder and learning disorder, noting his\\n“difficulty reading and poor math skills.” Ray also met with\\nDr. Fish, an agency physician, who determined that Ray’s ma-\\njor functional impairment is exertional tolerance. Dr. Fish\\nnoted a positive result from a supine straight-leg test, which\\nreflects lumbar nerve root compression, though the less-sen-\\nsitive seated test was negative.1\\n The agency denied Ray’s applications initially and upon\\nreconsideration, and his case proceeded to a hearing with an\\nALJ. At the hearing, Ray testified—and his mother and girl-\\nfriend corroborated with written statements—that his daily\\nactivities include taking his medication, making himself three\\nsimple meals, watching television, using the dishwasher, and\\nshowering (while using a shower seat). Outside of these tasks,\\nhe sits and watches television. Ray occasionally does laundry\\nif reminded, and he had the laundry machines moved from\\nthe basement to the first floor of his house because the stairs\\nwere difficult for him. Once per week, he goes grocery shop-\\nping with the assistance of an electric cart. When he did not\\nhave family to drive him, the hospital provided him a bus\\npass because he is physically incapable of walking home.\\n In addition to his physical impairments, Ray has limited\\nintellect. He testified that he completed eight grades of special\\neducation, but he struggles to read and write. Although he\\nwill occasionally purchase a newspaper, it takes time for him\\nto make sense of what he sees. Because of his limitations, his\\n\\n\\n 1 See Alon Rabin, et al., The Sensitivity of the Seated Straight-Leg Raise\\nTest Compared with the Supine Straight-Leg Raise Test in Patients Presenting\\nwith Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Lumbar Nerve Root Compression,\\n88 PHYSICAL MED. & REHAB. 840, 842 (2007).\\n\\f4 No. 18-2229\\n\\nmother or girlfriend must write his checks and complete his\\npaperwork.\\n In her decision, the ALJ analyzed Ray’s application based\\non the five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and\\nfound him not disabled. She determined that he is not en-\\ngaged in substantial gainful employment (step one) and that\\nhe has severe impairments of diabetes mellitus, obesity, de-\\ngenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, coronary ar-\\ntery disease, kidney disease, hypertension, and a history of\\natrial fibrillation (step two). But his impairments, she con-\\ncluded, do not meet a listing (step three).\\n The ALJ determined that Ray has the residual functional\\ncapacity (“RFC”) to perform light work (lifting ten to twenty\\npounds) and to stand or walk for six hours. She also found\\nthat he is able to “understand, remember, and carry out semi-\\nskilled tasks” and “attend to tasks for a sufficient period in\\norder to complete tasks.” Regarding Ray’s limitations, the\\nALJ found him only “partially credible,” largely based on the\\nnotion that, if his symptoms were as severe as alleged, his\\ndaily activities would be more restricted and he would be\\nmore compliant with his prescribed treatments.\\n The ALJ presented Ray’s RFC to the vocational expert,\\nwho concluded that Ray could work as a school bus moni-\\ntor—not as he had performed the job, but as it is performed\\nin the national economy. At the hearing, Ray questioned the\\nvocational expert about the required level of language devel-\\nopment for that position. The vocational expert confirmed\\nthat a requirement of the job, as it is generally performed, is\\nthe ability to “write compound and complex sentences, using\\ncursive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjec-\\ntives and adverbs.”\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 5\\n\\n At the hearing and in a supplemental brief, Ray argued\\nthat his previous position as a bus monitor for disabled\\nschoolchildren was a composite job—that is, one that com-\\nbines “significant elements of two or more occupations and,\\nas such, ha[s] no counterpart in the [Dictionary of Occupa-\\ntional Titles],” Social Security Ruling 82-61. His job, Ray ar-\\ngued, involved substantial activities from both the school bus\\nmonitor and child care attendant positions as they are de-\\nscribed in the DOT. Ray questioned the vocational expert on\\nthis subject, but the testimony is transcribed as “inaudible”\\nduring the key responses, and Ray and the agency represent\\nthose portions differently.\\n In her written decision, however, the ALJ dismissed Ray’s\\nargument about composite jobs as “unpersuasive and unsup-\\nported” and concluded that Ray could be a bus monitor as\\nthat job is generally performed. She did not discuss the undis-\\nputed language-development requirements for that position.\\nUltimately, based on the vocational expert’s testimony that\\nRay could perform his past relevant work, the ALJ concluded\\nthat he is not disabled.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We uphold an ALJ’s decision only if substantial evidence\\nfrom the record supports her determination. Lanigan v. Ber-\\nryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Ray raises four challenges in this appeal: (1) the ALJ erred\\nin evaluating his daily activities and medical reports, making\\nher credibility determination patently wrong; (2) the ALJ\\nerred in concluding that he could perform his past relevant\\nwork because his bus-monitor job was a composite job, which\\nprecludes a finding at step four; (3) the ALJ erred in finding\\n\\f6 No. 18-2229\\n\\nthat he could do the bus-monitor job as generally performed\\nbecause he does not meet the necessary General Educational\\nDevelopment Level; and (4) the ALJ erred in assessing his\\nmental impairments by finding them not severe and by not\\nincluding any limitations on concentration, persistence, and\\npace in his RFC.\\n With respect to the adverse credibility determination, this\\nis the rare case in which the claimant can overcome the “con-\\nsiderable deference” we afford such findings unless they are\\n“patently wrong,” Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir.\\n2009). Specifically, the ALJ erroneously evaluated Ray’s\\nsymptoms and daily activities, misinterpreted medical evi-\\ndence, and failed to ask why he skipped some appointments.\\n In assessing Ray’s back and hip pain, the ALJ acknowl-\\nedged that Ray had a herniating disc, degenerative disc and\\njoint disease of the lower lumber spine, a herniated nucleus\\npulpous, and chronic pain syndrome. But to support her de-\\ntermination that these impairments “are not as limiting as he\\nalleged,” she cited irrelevant records from treatment he re-\\nceived for a staph infection and she noted that his extremities\\nwere not fractured, tender, or swollen. The connection be-\\ntween those characteristics and Ray’s alleged pain and re-\\nstricted mobility is nowhere explained. She also mischaracter-\\nized Dr. Fish’s report, writing that the straight-leg raise test\\nwas negative when the opposite was true.\\n The ALJ also improperly emphasized Ray’s lack of follow-\\nup on a recommended spine evaluation and his difficulty\\nwith medication compliance. Within five years, Ray missed\\ntwo follow-up appointments, one for his heart and one for his\\nspine. When the ALJ asked him about the missed cardiology\\nappointment, he explained that he was uninsured at the time\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 7\\n\\nand could not afford it. Although the record showed that Ray\\nhad repeatedly lost his health insurance, the ALJ did not ask\\nhim about his missed spine appointment and instead as-\\nsumed that he did not attend because his symptoms were not\\nserious. That was reversible error; an ALJ must not draw in-\\nferences about a claimant’s lack of treatment without explor-\\ning the reasons for the inaction. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d\\n834, 840 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the ALJ bolstered her pre-\\nsumption with evidence of Ray’s difficulty with medication\\ncompliance, even though, with respect to his pain (as opposed\\nto his diabetes), those medical records point to Ray’s credibil-\\nity. Ray’s “noncompliance” with his musculoskeletal treat-\\nment stemmed from taking pain medication too frequently,\\nwhich does not support the ALJ’s inference that he was exag-\\ngerating his pain.\\n The ALJ also overemphasized Ray’s daily living activities.\\nThe only evidence of those activities comes from Ray’s testi-\\nmony (which apparently the ALJ credited in this aspect) and\\nhis family’s, and it shows that the sum of Ray’s daily routine\\ninvolves showering while seated, fixing simple meals, and us-\\ning the dishwasher. In between these activities, he sits and\\nwatches television. These minimal daily activities do not sup-\\nport the ALJ’s finding that Ray exaggerated his symptoms,\\nnor do they support the ultimate RFC. See Clifford v. Apfel,\\n227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000). Although the ALJ credited\\nhim with caring for his son, his son is an adult, and no evi-\\ndence reflects the type of “care” that Ray supposedly pro-\\nvided. Further, the struggle of living with his son at one point\\nsent Ray into a suicidal decompensation.\\n Ray is also correct that the ALJ made two technical errors\\nat step four that led to the unsupportable conclusion that he\\n\\f8 No. 18-2229\\n\\ncould perform his past relevant work as a bus monitor as that\\nposition exists in the national economy. First, the ALJ con-\\ncluded that Ray’s former position was not a “composite” job\\nand, therefore, that it could be assessed with reference to the\\nDictionary of Occupational Titles. A claimant is not disabled\\nif he can do his past relevant work either in the manner he\\nperformed it before the impairment or in the manner it is gen-\\nerally performed in the national economy. See Getch v. Astrue,\\n539 F.3d 473, 482 (7th Cir. 2008). But if the prior position was\\na composite job, then the ALJ may not reference it when de-\\ntermining whether a claimant can perform his past job as it is\\ngenerally performed. See Programs Operation Manual System\\nDI 25005.020; see also Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.\\nv. Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003) (POMS serve as guidance\\nand “warrant respect”); Cannon v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 970, 975\\n(7th Cir. 2000) (same).\\n Ray argues that his prior job was a composite job that com-\\nbined elements of the school bus monitor and school child-\\ncare attendant positions. He cites the vocational expert’s tes-\\ntimony to support his position, asserting that the expert testi-\\nfied that his bus monitor position was a composite job. The\\nagency, for its part, asserts that the expert testified to the op-\\nposite. Because key parts of the vocational expert’s testimony\\nare marked as “[inaudible],” his opinion is not clear. But a re-\\nview of the duties of a school child-care attendant bolsters\\nRay’s point:\\n Attends to personal needs of handicapped children\\n while in school to receive specialized academic and\\n physical training: Wheels handicapped children to\\n classes, lunchrooms, treatment rooms, and other ar-\\n eas of building. Secures children in equipment, such as\\n chairs, slings, or stretchers, and places or hoists\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 9\\n\\n children into baths or pools. Monitors children using\\n life support equipment to detect indications of mal-\\n functioning of equipment and calls for medical as-\\n sistance when needed. Helps children to walk, board\\n buses, put on prosthetic appliances, eat, dress, bathe,\\n and perform other physical activities as their needs\\n require.\\nU.S. Dep’t of Lab., 1 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 258\\n(4th ed. 1991) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the du-\\nties of a school bus monitor are:\\n Monitors conduct of students on school bus to main-\\n tain discipline and safety: Directs loading of stu-\\n dents on bus to prevent congestion and unsafe con-\\n ditions. Rides school bus to prevent altercations be-\\n tween students and damage to bus. Participates in\\n school bus safety drills. May disembark from school\\n bus at railroad crossings and clear bus across tracks.\\nId. at 269.\\n Here, the ALJ concluded that Ray’s previous bus-monitor\\njob was not a composite job because his work matched the\\nDOT description “in all but the exertional requirements.” But\\nRay’s testimony (the only evidence of his job duties) demon-\\nstrates that as a bus monitor he performed significant ele-\\nments of the childcare-attendant job, like assisting the stu-\\ndents in boarding buses and securing them in their equipment\\nand chairs. The DOT description of the bus-monitor job does\\nnot include these duties, and the vocational expert’s testi-\\nmony is ambiguous. Thus, substantial evidence does not sup-\\nport the ALJ’s conclusion that Ray’s previous job was not a\\ncomposite job.\\n\\f10 No. 18-2229\\n\\n Relatedly, Ray argues that the ALJ erred further by con-\\ncluding that he could work as a bus monitor as the job is gen-\\nerally performed despite his lacking the necessary General\\nEducational Development Level for that job. The bus-monitor\\nposition requires at least a Language Development Level 2,\\nwhich expects that employees will be able to, among other\\nthings, “[w]rite compound and complex sentences, using cur-\\nsive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjectives\\nand adverbs”; “[r]ead adventure stories and comic books,\\nlooking up unfamiliar words in dictionary for meaning,\\nspelling, and pronunciation”; and “[r]ead instructions for as-\\nsembling model cars and airplanes.” U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 2 Dic-\\ntionary of Occupational Titles 1011 (4th ed. 1991). No evi-\\ndence supports the ALJ’s implied finding that Ray has these\\nskills.\\n To the contrary, Ray testified that he does not fill out his\\nown checks or paperwork because he misspells words and\\nthat he can barely read a newspaper article, a limitation con-\\nfirmed in Dr. Zera’s evaluation. When a vocational expert’s\\ntestimony that a claimant can perform a job conflicts with the\\nclaimant’s ability to meet the job’s listed requirements in the\\nDOT, then the ALJ must resolve that conflict before relying on\\nthe testimony to support her disability findings. See Social Se-\\ncurity Ruling 00-4p; Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 255 (7th Cir.\\n2016); Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). The\\nALJ’s failure to do that here, along with the other errors at\\nstep four, warrants remand. See Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672,\\n678 (7th Cir. 2009) (cumulative effect of multiple errors war-\\nranted remand).\\n Finally, Ray argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his\\nmental limitations, first by finding them not severe at step two\\n\\fNo. 18-2229 11\\n\\nand later by not including any limitations on concentration,\\npersistence, and pace in the RFC. To some extent, Ray is mis-\\ntaken. Step two is merely a threshold inquiry; so long as one\\nof a claimant’s limitations is found to be severe, error at that\\nstep is harmless. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.\\n2012). Either way, the ALJ must later consider the limitations\\nimposed by all impairments, severe and non-severe. 20 C.F.R.\\n§ 404.1523; Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 423 (7th Cir. 2010).\\nNevertheless, the ALJ based the RFC on her flawed credibility\\nfinding, which led her to discredit the opinions of the two\\nagency experts who concluded that Ray had a severe mental\\nimpairment. Therefore, the ALJ will have to revisit her assess-\\nment of Ray’s mental impairments in any case.\\n Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND to\\nthe district court with instructions to remand the case to the\\nagency for further proceedings.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":697,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4589994,"string":"4,589,994"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Edward Boliaux"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1322"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-1322\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nEDWARD BOLIAUX,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 CR 115 — Manish S. Shah, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ST. EVE,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Between 2002 and 2008 Ed-\\nward Boliaux operated EMC Automotive, a used-car dealer-\\nship, in Joliet, Illinois. He borrowed money from three lend-\\ners, using inventory as security. Most loans were secured by\\nthe cars’ certificates of title, a device called floorplanning.\\nBecause there is supposed to be only one title certificate per\\ncar, the dealer cannot transfer good title to a customer with-\\n\\f2 No. 18-1322\\n\\nout paying the lender. Although lenders may allow sales to\\nprecede payment, they demand that the money be held in\\ntrust until the loan is retired. But beginning in 2007 Boliaux\\npersuaded state officials to issue duplicate certificates of title\\non the pretense that the originals had been lost. He used\\nthese to obtain multiple loans against single vehicles, exceed-\\ning the cars’ market value and leaving the lenders under-\\nsecured. He also began to sell cars without using the pro-\\nceeds to repay the loans. After one of the lenders detected\\nthis and impounded the collateral, Boliaux persuaded the\\ncustodian to release eight cars, which he sold for his own\\nbenefit.\\n Deceit continued after EMC Automotive collapsed. In\\nSeptember 2008 Cindy Boliaux, then Edward’s wife, incor-\\nporated Joliet Motors, which Edward operated from the\\npremises formerly occupied by EMC. Joliet Motors received\\ninstallment payments sent by the customers of EMC yet did\\nnot remit them to lenders. Boliaux had trouble borrowing\\nagainst the inventory of his new dealership, and in 2008 and\\n2009 he turned to check kiting.\\n For these and related acts, a jury convicted him of four\\ncounts of wire fraud and six of bank fraud. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343,\\n1344. He has been sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment\\nand three years’ supervised release.\\n Boliaux contends that the evidence was insufficient—on\\nthe wire fraud counts principally because he did not trans-\\nmit anything by wire, and on the bank fraud counts princi-\\npally because no one from the banks testified that the banks\\nlost money. The district court addressed these and other con-\\ntentions when denying Boliaux’s motion under Fed. R. Crim.\\nP. 29:\\n\\fNo. 18-1322 3\\n\\n Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see United\\n States v. Washington, 184 F.3d 653, 657 (7th Cir. 1999), the evi-\\n dence demonstrated that Boliaux obtained financing from lend-\\n ers through materially false representations, and he perpetuated\\n his scheme through the concealment of material facts. Boliaux\\n argues that the evidence amounted to, at most, a disjointed se-\\n ries of immaterial breaches of contract. Neither the facts nor the\\n law support this argument. Obtaining money through a scheme\\n intended to cheat others is a crime whether or not it is also slop-\\n py business or breach of contract. It suffices to note that Boliaux\\n lied to obtain duplicate titles for cars that he knew were financed\\n by one lender, and used the duplicate titles to obtain additional\\n financing from a second lender—thereby compromising the se-\\n curity interests of both lenders. Later, he forged lien releases\\n purportedly from GMAC, and with those releases, obtained car\\n titles that he used to secure more financing—thereby cheating\\n those lenders by concealing GMAC’s interests. According to in-\\n dustry representatives, clear title to a vehicle that was part of\\n floorplan financing was material to lenders, even when liens\\n were not individually filed and notwithstanding the breadth of\\n the collateral securing financing. The evidence of defendant’s\\n control over the car dealerships was sufficient to prove his inten-\\n tional participation in the scheme. His intent to defraud was\\n manifest in his false statements and forgeries, and in his con-\\n cealment of facts associated with Joliet Motors. The charged wire\\n transmissions traveled across state lines—from Joliet Motors in\\n Illinois and routed through Pennsylvania or Ohio, and they ad-\\n vanced the scheme to defraud the lenders because they were\\n payments for a vehicle that had been sold to the detriment of the\\n lender’s interests. The evidence of Boliaux’s supervision of Joliet\\n Motors, and his involvement in the payment-processing system,\\n was sufficient to make the wire transmissions a foreseeable con-\\n sequence of his scheme.\\n Testimony from the victim banks was not necessary to support a\\n conviction on the bank fraud counts. The bank records, coupled\\n with the explanatory testimony of expert witness Wolverton\\n (who testified under Rule 702 without objection) and the evi-\\n dence of Boliaux’s control over the bank accounts, demonstrated\\n\\f4 No. 18-1322\\n\\n the risk of loss to the banks and Boliaux’s intent to deceive\\n through check kiting.\\n The evidence was not just sufficient, it was overwhelming, and\\n defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquijal under Rule 29 is\\n denied.\\n\\nIt is not necessary to say more about the sufficiency of the\\nevidence. Later we discuss the decision by Boliaux’s lawyer\\nto omit from his brief the district court’s analysis of this sub-\\nject.\\n Boliaux asked the district judge to instruct the jury that it\\nhad to agree, unanimously, how he carried out his scheme to\\ndefraud. The judge properly declined. Each wire-fraud\\ncount of the indictment charged a single scheme to defraud\\nimplemented in 17 ways (obtaining duplicate titles by falsely\\nasserting that others had been lost, pledging the same car to\\nmultiple lenders, selling cars without repaying the loans,\\nand so on). The means used to carry out a fraudulent scheme\\nare not separate elements requiring unanimity. See, e.g.,\\nRichardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817 (1999). Boliaux\\nseeks to avoid this rule by contending that the wire-fraud\\ncharges are duplicitous—in other words, that each count re-\\nally charges multiple crimes, rather than one crime com-\\nmijed through multiple acts. The district court addressed\\nthis argument, too, in the order from which we have already\\nquoted:\\n Boliaux raises an untimely argument concerning duplicity, but\\n he never challenged the indictment under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(i) and\\n offers no excuse for this failure. The claim is forfeited, but in any\\n event, there was no duplicity, much less prejudicial duplicity.\\n Each wire fraud count alleged one execution of a single scheme\\n to defraud with a variety of alleged means. No unanimity with\\n respect to those means was required. United States v. Daniel, 749\\n F.3d 608, 614 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n\\fNo. 18-1322 5\\n\\nThus Boliaux lost in the district court on two grounds: forfei-\\nture and the merits. His opening brief on appeal ignores the\\nforfeiture. If you lose in the district court on multiple\\ngrounds, you must contest all on appeal; prevailing on one\\nwon’t suffice. After the prosecutor relied on the forfeiture\\nruling, Boliaux finally addressed it in his reply brief. That’s\\ntoo late—and as it happens too lijle as well.\\n Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) lists more\\nthan a dozen defenses or arguments that must be presented\\nbefore trial, so that any error may be corrected (and the\\nprosecutor can appeal an adverse decision without encoun-\\ntering a problem under the Double Jeopardy Clause). See\\nUnited States v. Nixon, 901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018).\\nDuplicity is among them. There is an escape hatch: “If a par-\\nty does not meet the deadline for making a Rule 12(b)(3) mo-\\ntion, the motion is untimely. But a court may consider the\\ndefense, objection, or request if the party shows good\\ncause.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3). The district judge stated\\nthat Boliaux has not offered an excuse for his delay. That\\nremains true. The reply brief does not contend that Boliaux\\nhad “good cause”—or indeed any cause—for raising a du-\\nplicity argument only in mid-trial. The decision may well\\nhave been strategic, deferring majers until it was too late for\\nthe prosecutor either to amend the indictment or appeal\\nfrom an adverse decision. This is exactly the kind of strategy\\nthat Rule 12(b)(3) is designed to block.\\n Not content with holding back a duplicity argument until\\nmid-trial, Boliaux withheld a multiplicity argument until his\\nopening appellate brief. Multiplicity means charging a single\\ncrime in multiple counts. Boliaux tells us that he commijed\\nat most one bank fraud, no majer how many checks he\\n\\f6 No. 18-1322\\n\\nwrote against insufficient funds, making the six bank-fraud\\ncounts multiplicitous. Yet multiplicity is among the majers\\nthat must be raised before trial. Fed. R. Crim. P.\\n12(b)(3)(B)(ii). Consideration of the argument now depends\\nnot only on a demonstration of plain error (the standard for\\nall contentions first presented on appeal) but also on a\\ndemonstration of good cause. Boliaux does not argue that he\\nhad good cause—or any cause at all—for delay in making\\nthis argument. We therefore do not consider it.\\n One evidentiary contention requires a few words. John\\nBrincat appeared for the prosecution as an expert witness on\\nthe topic of floorplanning. He explained to the jury how\\nthese loans are made and why lenders’ risk is increased by\\nthe existence of multiple title certificates and multiple loans\\nagainst a single vehicle. The district judge found this testi-\\nmony proper under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Still, Boliaux contends\\nthat the testimony should have been barred because Brincat\\nacted as both an expert witness and a fact witness, a dual\\nrole that may leave the jury confused about how to treat the\\ntestimony. See, e.g., United States v. Je@, 908 F.3d 252, 267–68\\n(7th Cir. 2018). The district court disagreed, stating: “The tes-\\ntimony elicited by the government from witness Brincat was\\nlimited to his role as an industry expert and did not stray\\ninto fact-witness territory”. Boliaux contests this by observ-\\ning that Brincat testified about how the whole floorplan-\\nlending industry works, and Boliaux insists that because\\nBrincat is employed by Automotive Finance Corp. (AFC),\\none of the defrauded lenders, the jury likely would have un-\\nderstood him to be a fact witness.\\n The district judge did not abuse his discretion by per-\\nmijing Brincat to testify. He did not describe any special fea-\\n\\fNo. 18-1322 7\\n\\ntures of AFC’s practices or any of the dealings between AFC\\nand Boliaux. The jury surely understood Brincat to be testi-\\nfying exclusively as an expert. We are surprised that the\\nprosecutor would present Brincat as an expert, enabling the\\ndefense to paint a vital witness as biased, but puzzling deci-\\nsions do not make evidence inadmissible.\\n Boliaux presents a few additional arguments, which do\\nnot require discussion. They have been considered and are\\nrejected.\\n We promised earlier to return to how Boliaux has treated\\nthe district court’s explanations for its decisions. Circuit Rule\\n30(b)(1) requires every appellant to include, in an appendix\\nto the brief, “[c]opies of any … opinions, orders, or oral rul-\\nings in the case that address the issues sought to be raised.”\\nCircuit Rule 30(d) adds: “The appendix to each appellant’s\\nbrief shall contain a statement that all of the materials re-\\nquired by parts (a) and (b) of this rule are included.”\\nBoliaux’s brief, signed by Andrew S. Gable of Chicago, con-\\ntains the required certification. But it is false. The appendix\\nomits the district court’s statement of its reasons for finding\\nthe evidence sufficient, finding the duplicity argument (and\\nthe proposed unanimity instruction) forfeited under Rule\\n12(b), and permijing Brincat to testify. (The opinion ad-\\ndresses other topics as well.) The appendix also omits sub-\\nstantial parts of the district judge’s mid-trial discussions of\\nthese and other issues. Was Gable hoping that we would not\\ndiscover those rulings?\\n False representations to the court of appeals have conse-\\nquences. In civil litigation a false certificate of compliance\\nwith Circuit Rule 30(a) and (b) leads to summary affirmance\\nor dismissal of the appeal. See, e.g., Urso v. United States, 72\\n\\f8 No. 18-1322\\n\\nF.3d 59, 61–62 (7th Cir. 1995); Mortell v. Mortell Co., 887 F.2d\\n1322, 1327 (7th Cir. 1989); Teitelbaum v. Curtis Publishing Co.,\\n314 F.2d 94, 95–96 (7th Cir. 1963); Sparrow v. Yellow Cab Co.,\\n273 F.2d 1, 4 (7th Cir. 1959); Chicago & Eastern Illinois Ry. v.\\nSouthern Ry., 261 F.2d 394, 400 n.7 (7th Cir. 1958). The client\\nthen may be able to recover from counsel for malpractice.\\nWe concluded in United States v. Smith, 953 F.2d 1060, 1068\\n(7th Cir. 1992), that this would not be appropriate in criminal\\ncases, where defendants have difficulty monitoring their\\nlawyers’ performance—and where dismissal of the appeal or\\nsummary affirmance would lead straight to a decision find-\\ning that counsel had furnished ineffective assistance, which\\nwould authorize a new appeal. It is best in criminal cases to\\ngive the defendant plenary appellate review, as we have\\ndone, and penalize the lawyer directly. See In re Galvan, 92\\nF.3d 582 (7th Cir. 1996). See also Guentchev v. INS, 77 F.3d\\n1036 (7th Cir. 1996) (same approach in immigration law).\\n Galvan established $1,000 as the presumptive fine for a\\nviolation of Circuit Rule 30 in a criminal case. 92 F.3d at 584–\\n85. See also, e.g., United States v. Evans, 270 F.3d 1076, 1085\\n(7th Cir. 2001). Adjusting for inflation, $1,000 in 1996 is\\nequivalent to $1,597 today. This implies that the presumptive\\nfine should become $1,600.\\n Counsel has 14 days to show cause why he should not be\\nfined $1,600, and reprimanded, for his violation of Circuit\\nRule 30(b) and his false statement under Circuit Rule 30(d).\\n The judgment is affirmed, and an order to show cause\\nwill be issued.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4367247/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589994/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Edward Boliaux\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-1322\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\nEDWARD BOLIAUX,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16 CR 115 — Manish S. Shah, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ST. EVE,\nCircuit Judges.\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Between 2002 and 2008 Ed-\nward Boliaux operated EMC Automotive, a used-car dealer-\nship, in Joliet, Illinois. He borrowed money from three lend-\ners, using inventory as security. Most loans were secured by\nthe cars’ certificates of title, a device called floorplanning.\nBecause there is supposed to be only one title certificate per\ncar, the dealer cannot transfer good title to a customer with-\n\f2 No. 18-1322\n\nout paying the lender. Although lenders may allow sales to\nprecede payment, they demand that the money be held in\ntrust until the loan is retired. But beginning in 2007 Boliaux\npersuaded state officials to issue duplicate certificates of title\non the pretense that the originals had been lost. He used\nthese to obtain multiple loans against single vehicles, exceed-\ning the cars’ market value and leaving the lenders under-\nsecured. He also began to sell cars without using the pro-\nceeds to repay the loans. After one of the lenders detected\nthis and impounded the collateral, Boliaux persuaded the\ncustodian to release eight cars, which he sold for his own\nbenefit.\n Deceit continued after EMC Automotive collapsed. In\nSeptember 2008 Cindy Boliaux, then Edward’s wife, incor-\nporated Joliet Motors, which Edward operated from the\npremises formerly occupied by EMC. Joliet Motors received\ninstallment payments sent by the customers of EMC yet did\nnot remit them to lenders. Boliaux had trouble borrowing\nagainst the inventory of his new dealership, and in 2008 and\n2009 he turned to check kiting.\n For these and related acts, a jury convicted him of four\ncounts of wire fraud and six of bank fraud. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343,\n1344. He has been sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment\nand three years’ supervised release.\n Boliaux contends that the evidence was insufficient—on\nthe wire fraud counts principally because he did not trans-\nmit anything by wire, and on the bank fraud counts princi-\npally because no one from the banks testified that the banks\nlost money. The district court addressed these and other con-\ntentions when denying Boliaux’s motion under Fed. R. Crim.\nP. 29:\n\fNo. 18-1322 3\n\n Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see United\n States v. Washington, 184 F.3d 653, 657 (7th Cir. 1999), the evi-\n dence demonstrated that Boliaux obtained financing from lend-\n ers through materially false representations, and he perpetuated\n his scheme through the concealment of material facts. Boliaux\n argues that the evidence amounted to, at most, a disjointed se-\n ries of immaterial breaches of contract. Neither the facts nor the\n law support this argument. Obtaining money through a scheme\n intended to cheat others is a crime whether or not it is also slop-\n py business or breach of contract. It suffices to note that Boliaux\n lied to obtain duplicate titles for cars that he knew were financed\n by one lender, and used the duplicate titles to obtain additional\n financing from a second lender—thereby compromising the se-\n curity interests of both lenders. Later, he forged lien releases\n purportedly from GMAC, and with those releases, obtained car\n titles that he used to secure more financing—thereby cheating\n those lenders by concealing GMAC’s interests. According to in-\n dustry representatives, clear title to a vehicle that was part of\n floorplan financing was material to lenders, even when liens\n were not individually filed and notwithstanding the breadth of\n the collateral securing financing. The evidence of defendant’s\n control over the car dealerships was sufficient to prove his inten-\n tional participation in the scheme. His intent to defraud was\n manifest in his false statements and forgeries, and in his con-\n cealment of facts associated with Joliet Motors. The charged wire\n transmissions traveled across state lines—from Joliet Motors in\n Illinois and routed through Pennsylvania or Ohio, and they ad-\n vanced the scheme to defraud the lenders because they were\n payments for a vehicle that had been sold to the detriment of the\n lender’s interests. The evidence of Boliaux’s supervision of Joliet\n Motors, and his involvement in the payment-processing system,\n was sufficient to make the wire transmissions a foreseeable con-\n sequence of his scheme.\n Testimony from the victim banks was not necessary to support a\n conviction on the bank fraud counts. The bank records, coupled\n with the explanatory testimony of expert witness Wolverton\n (who testified under Rule 702 without objection) and the evi-\n dence of Boliaux’s control over the bank accounts, demonstrated\n\f4 No. 18-1322\n\n the risk of loss to the banks and Boliaux’s intent to deceive\n through check kiting.\n The evidence was not just sufficient, it was overwhelming, and\n defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquijal under Rule 29 is\n denied.\n\nIt is not necessary to say more about the sufficiency of the\nevidence. Later we discuss the decision by Boliaux’s lawyer\nto omit from his brief the district court’s analysis of this sub-\nject.\n Boliaux asked the district judge to instruct the jury that it\nhad to agree, unanimously, how he carried out his scheme to\ndefraud. The judge properly declined. Each wire-fraud\ncount of the indictment charged a single scheme to defraud\nimplemented in 17 ways (obtaining duplicate titles by falsely\nasserting that others had been lost, pledging the same car to\nmultiple lenders, selling cars without repaying the loans,\nand so on). The means used to carry out a fraudulent scheme\nare not separate elements requiring unanimity. See, e.g.,\nRichardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817 (1999). Boliaux\nseeks to avoid this rule by contending that the wire-fraud\ncharges are duplicitous—in other words, that each count re-\nally charges multiple crimes, rather than one crime com-\nmijed through multiple acts. The district court addressed\nthis argument, too, in the order from which we have already\nquoted:\n Boliaux raises an untimely argument concerning duplicity, but\n he never challenged the indictment under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(i) and\n offers no excuse for this failure. The claim is forfeited, but in any\n event, there was no duplicity, much less prejudicial duplicity.\n Each wire fraud count alleged one execution of a single scheme\n to defraud with a variety of alleged means. No unanimity with\n respect to those means was required. United States v. Daniel, 749\n F.3d 608, 614 (7th Cir. 2014).\n\fNo. 18-1322 5\n\nThus Boliaux lost in the district court on two grounds: forfei-\nture and the merits. His opening brief on appeal ignores the\nforfeiture. If you lose in the district court on multiple\ngrounds, you must contest all on appeal; prevailing on one\nwon’t suffice. After the prosecutor relied on the forfeiture\nruling, Boliaux finally addressed it in his reply brief. That’s\ntoo late—and as it happens too lijle as well.\n Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) lists more\nthan a dozen defenses or arguments that must be presented\nbefore trial, so that any error may be corrected (and the\nprosecutor can appeal an adverse decision without encoun-\ntering a problem under the Double Jeopardy Clause). See\nUnited States v. Nixon, 901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018).\nDuplicity is among them. There is an escape hatch: “If a par-\nty does not meet the deadline for making a Rule 12(b)(3) mo-\ntion, the motion is untimely. But a court may consider the\ndefense, objection, or request if the party shows good\ncause.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3). The district judge stated\nthat Boliaux has not offered an excuse for his delay. That\nremains true. The reply brief does not contend that Boliaux\nhad “good cause”—or indeed any cause—for raising a du-\nplicity argument only in mid-trial. The decision may well\nhave been strategic, deferring majers until it was too late for\nthe prosecutor either to amend the indictment or appeal\nfrom an adverse decision. This is exactly the kind of strategy\nthat Rule 12(b)(3) is designed to block.\n Not content with holding back a duplicity argument until\nmid-trial, Boliaux withheld a multiplicity argument until his\nopening appellate brief. Multiplicity means charging a single\ncrime in multiple counts. Boliaux tells us that he commijed\nat most one bank fraud, no majer how many checks he\n\f6 No. 18-1322\n\nwrote against insufficient funds, making the six bank-fraud\ncounts multiplicitous. Yet multiplicity is among the majers\nthat must be raised before trial. Fed. R. Crim. P.\n12(b)(3)(B)(ii). Consideration of the argument now depends\nnot only on a demonstration of plain error (the standard for\nall contentions first presented on appeal) but also on a\ndemonstration of good cause. Boliaux does not argue that he\nhad good cause—or any cause at all—for delay in making\nthis argument. We therefore do not consider it.\n One evidentiary contention requires a few words. John\nBrincat appeared for the prosecution as an expert witness on\nthe topic of floorplanning. He explained to the jury how\nthese loans are made and why lenders’ risk is increased by\nthe existence of multiple title certificates and multiple loans\nagainst a single vehicle. The district judge found this testi-\nmony proper under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Still, Boliaux contends\nthat the testimony should have been barred because Brincat\nacted as both an expert witness and a fact witness, a dual\nrole that may leave the jury confused about how to treat the\ntestimony. See, e.g., United States v. Je@, 908 F.3d 252, 267–68\n(7th Cir. 2018). The district court disagreed, stating: “The tes-\ntimony elicited by the government from witness Brincat was\nlimited to his role as an industry expert and did not stray\ninto fact-witness territory”. Boliaux contests this by observ-\ning that Brincat testified about how the whole floorplan-\nlending industry works, and Boliaux insists that because\nBrincat is employed by Automotive Finance Corp. (AFC),\none of the defrauded lenders, the jury likely would have un-\nderstood him to be a fact witness.\n The district judge did not abuse his discretion by per-\nmijing Brincat to testify. He did not describe any special fea-\n\fNo. 18-1322 7\n\ntures of AFC’s practices or any of the dealings between AFC\nand Boliaux. The jury surely understood Brincat to be testi-\nfying exclusively as an expert. We are surprised that the\nprosecutor would present Brincat as an expert, enabling the\ndefense to paint a vital witness as biased, but puzzling deci-\nsions do not make evidence inadmissible.\n Boliaux presents a few additional arguments, which do\nnot require discussion. They have been considered and are\nrejected.\n We promised earlier to return to how Boliaux has treated\nthe district court’s explanations for its decisions. Circuit Rule\n30(b)(1) requires every appellant to include, in an appendix\nto the brief, “[c]opies of any … opinions, orders, or oral rul-\nings in the case that address the issues sought to be raised.”\nCircuit Rule 30(d) adds: “The appendix to each appellant’s\nbrief shall contain a statement that all of the materials re-\nquired by parts (a) and (b) of this rule are included.”\nBoliaux’s brief, signed by Andrew S. Gable of Chicago, con-\ntains the required certification. But it is false. The appendix\nomits the district court’s statement of its reasons for finding\nthe evidence sufficient, finding the duplicity argument (and\nthe proposed unanimity instruction) forfeited under Rule\n12(b), and permijing Brincat to testify. (The opinion ad-\ndresses other topics as well.) The appendix also omits sub-\nstantial parts of the district judge’s mid-trial discussions of\nthese and other issues. Was Gable hoping that we would not\ndiscover those rulings?\n False representations to the court of appeals have conse-\nquences. In civil litigation a false certificate of compliance\nwith Circuit Rule 30(a) and (b) leads to summary affirmance\nor dismissal of the appeal. See, e.g., Urso v. United States, 72\n\f8 No. 18-1322\n\nF.3d 59, 61–62 (7th Cir. 1995); Mortell v. Mortell Co., 887 F.2d\n1322, 1327 (7th Cir. 1989); Teitelbaum v. Curtis Publishing Co.,\n314 F.2d 94, 95–96 (7th Cir. 1963); Sparrow v. Yellow Cab Co.,\n273 F.2d 1, 4 (7th Cir. 1959); Chicago & Eastern Illinois Ry. v.\nSouthern Ry., 261 F.2d 394, 400 n.7 (7th Cir. 1958). The client\nthen may be able to recover from counsel for malpractice.\nWe concluded in United States v. Smith, 953 F.2d 1060, 1068\n(7th Cir. 1992), that this would not be appropriate in criminal\ncases, where defendants have difficulty monitoring their\nlawyers’ performance—and where dismissal of the appeal or\nsummary affirmance would lead straight to a decision find-\ning that counsel had furnished ineffective assistance, which\nwould authorize a new appeal. It is best in criminal cases to\ngive the defendant plenary appellate review, as we have\ndone, and penalize the lawyer directly. See In re Galvan, 92\nF.3d 582 (7th Cir. 1996). See also Guentchev v. INS, 77 F.3d\n1036 (7th Cir. 1996) (same approach in immigration law).\n Galvan established $1,000 as the presumptive fine for a\nviolation of Circuit Rule 30 in a criminal case. 92 F.3d at 584–\n85. See also, e.g., United States v. Evans, 270 F.3d 1076, 1085\n(7th Cir. 2001). Adjusting for inflation, $1,000 in 1996 is\nequivalent to $1,597 today. This implies that the presumptive\nfine should become $1,600.\n Counsel has 14 days to show cause why he should not be\nfined $1,600, and reprimanded, for his violation of Circuit\nRule 30(b) and his false statement under Circuit Rule 30(d).\n The judgment is affirmed, and an order to show cause\nwill be issued.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Edward Boliaux\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-1322\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nEDWARD BOLIAUX,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 CR 115 — Manish S. Shah, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ST. EVE,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Between 2002 and 2008 Ed-\\nward Boliaux operated EMC Automotive, a used-car dealer-\\nship, in Joliet, Illinois. He borrowed money from three lend-\\ners, using inventory as security. Most loans were secured by\\nthe cars’ certificates of title, a device called floorplanning.\\nBecause there is supposed to be only one title certificate per\\ncar, the dealer cannot transfer good title to a customer with-\\n\\f2 No. 18-1322\\n\\nout paying the lender. Although lenders may allow sales to\\nprecede payment, they demand that the money be held in\\ntrust until the loan is retired. But beginning in 2007 Boliaux\\npersuaded state officials to issue duplicate certificates of title\\non the pretense that the originals had been lost. He used\\nthese to obtain multiple loans against single vehicles, exceed-\\ning the cars’ market value and leaving the lenders under-\\nsecured. He also began to sell cars without using the pro-\\nceeds to repay the loans. After one of the lenders detected\\nthis and impounded the collateral, Boliaux persuaded the\\ncustodian to release eight cars, which he sold for his own\\nbenefit.\\n Deceit continued after EMC Automotive collapsed. In\\nSeptember 2008 Cindy Boliaux, then Edward’s wife, incor-\\nporated Joliet Motors, which Edward operated from the\\npremises formerly occupied by EMC. Joliet Motors received\\ninstallment payments sent by the customers of EMC yet did\\nnot remit them to lenders. Boliaux had trouble borrowing\\nagainst the inventory of his new dealership, and in 2008 and\\n2009 he turned to check kiting.\\n For these and related acts, a jury convicted him of four\\ncounts of wire fraud and six of bank fraud. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343,\\n1344. He has been sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment\\nand three years’ supervised release.\\n Boliaux contends that the evidence was insufficient—on\\nthe wire fraud counts principally because he did not trans-\\nmit anything by wire, and on the bank fraud counts princi-\\npally because no one from the banks testified that the banks\\nlost money. The district court addressed these and other con-\\ntentions when denying Boliaux’s motion under Fed. R. Crim.\\nP. 29:\\n\\fNo. 18-1322 3\\n\\n Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see United\\n States v. Washington, 184 F.3d 653, 657 (7th Cir. 1999), the evi-\\n dence demonstrated that Boliaux obtained financing from lend-\\n ers through materially false representations, and he perpetuated\\n his scheme through the concealment of material facts. Boliaux\\n argues that the evidence amounted to, at most, a disjointed se-\\n ries of immaterial breaches of contract. Neither the facts nor the\\n law support this argument. Obtaining money through a scheme\\n intended to cheat others is a crime whether or not it is also slop-\\n py business or breach of contract. It suffices to note that Boliaux\\n lied to obtain duplicate titles for cars that he knew were financed\\n by one lender, and used the duplicate titles to obtain additional\\n financing from a second lender—thereby compromising the se-\\n curity interests of both lenders. Later, he forged lien releases\\n purportedly from GMAC, and with those releases, obtained car\\n titles that he used to secure more financing—thereby cheating\\n those lenders by concealing GMAC’s interests. According to in-\\n dustry representatives, clear title to a vehicle that was part of\\n floorplan financing was material to lenders, even when liens\\n were not individually filed and notwithstanding the breadth of\\n the collateral securing financing. The evidence of defendant’s\\n control over the car dealerships was sufficient to prove his inten-\\n tional participation in the scheme. His intent to defraud was\\n manifest in his false statements and forgeries, and in his con-\\n cealment of facts associated with Joliet Motors. The charged wire\\n transmissions traveled across state lines—from Joliet Motors in\\n Illinois and routed through Pennsylvania or Ohio, and they ad-\\n vanced the scheme to defraud the lenders because they were\\n payments for a vehicle that had been sold to the detriment of the\\n lender’s interests. The evidence of Boliaux’s supervision of Joliet\\n Motors, and his involvement in the payment-processing system,\\n was sufficient to make the wire transmissions a foreseeable con-\\n sequence of his scheme.\\n Testimony from the victim banks was not necessary to support a\\n conviction on the bank fraud counts. The bank records, coupled\\n with the explanatory testimony of expert witness Wolverton\\n (who testified under Rule 702 without objection) and the evi-\\n dence of Boliaux’s control over the bank accounts, demonstrated\\n\\f4 No. 18-1322\\n\\n the risk of loss to the banks and Boliaux’s intent to deceive\\n through check kiting.\\n The evidence was not just sufficient, it was overwhelming, and\\n defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquijal under Rule 29 is\\n denied.\\n\\nIt is not necessary to say more about the sufficiency of the\\nevidence. Later we discuss the decision by Boliaux’s lawyer\\nto omit from his brief the district court’s analysis of this sub-\\nject.\\n Boliaux asked the district judge to instruct the jury that it\\nhad to agree, unanimously, how he carried out his scheme to\\ndefraud. The judge properly declined. Each wire-fraud\\ncount of the indictment charged a single scheme to defraud\\nimplemented in 17 ways (obtaining duplicate titles by falsely\\nasserting that others had been lost, pledging the same car to\\nmultiple lenders, selling cars without repaying the loans,\\nand so on). The means used to carry out a fraudulent scheme\\nare not separate elements requiring unanimity. See, e.g.,\\nRichardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817 (1999). Boliaux\\nseeks to avoid this rule by contending that the wire-fraud\\ncharges are duplicitous—in other words, that each count re-\\nally charges multiple crimes, rather than one crime com-\\nmijed through multiple acts. The district court addressed\\nthis argument, too, in the order from which we have already\\nquoted:\\n Boliaux raises an untimely argument concerning duplicity, but\\n he never challenged the indictment under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(i) and\\n offers no excuse for this failure. The claim is forfeited, but in any\\n event, there was no duplicity, much less prejudicial duplicity.\\n Each wire fraud count alleged one execution of a single scheme\\n to defraud with a variety of alleged means. No unanimity with\\n respect to those means was required. United States v. Daniel, 749\\n F.3d 608, 614 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n\\fNo. 18-1322 5\\n\\nThus Boliaux lost in the district court on two grounds: forfei-\\nture and the merits. His opening brief on appeal ignores the\\nforfeiture. If you lose in the district court on multiple\\ngrounds, you must contest all on appeal; prevailing on one\\nwon’t suffice. After the prosecutor relied on the forfeiture\\nruling, Boliaux finally addressed it in his reply brief. That’s\\ntoo late—and as it happens too lijle as well.\\n Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) lists more\\nthan a dozen defenses or arguments that must be presented\\nbefore trial, so that any error may be corrected (and the\\nprosecutor can appeal an adverse decision without encoun-\\ntering a problem under the Double Jeopardy Clause). See\\nUnited States v. Nixon, 901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018).\\nDuplicity is among them. There is an escape hatch: “If a par-\\nty does not meet the deadline for making a Rule 12(b)(3) mo-\\ntion, the motion is untimely. But a court may consider the\\ndefense, objection, or request if the party shows good\\ncause.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3). The district judge stated\\nthat Boliaux has not offered an excuse for his delay. That\\nremains true. The reply brief does not contend that Boliaux\\nhad “good cause”—or indeed any cause—for raising a du-\\nplicity argument only in mid-trial. The decision may well\\nhave been strategic, deferring majers until it was too late for\\nthe prosecutor either to amend the indictment or appeal\\nfrom an adverse decision. This is exactly the kind of strategy\\nthat Rule 12(b)(3) is designed to block.\\n Not content with holding back a duplicity argument until\\nmid-trial, Boliaux withheld a multiplicity argument until his\\nopening appellate brief. Multiplicity means charging a single\\ncrime in multiple counts. Boliaux tells us that he commijed\\nat most one bank fraud, no majer how many checks he\\n\\f6 No. 18-1322\\n\\nwrote against insufficient funds, making the six bank-fraud\\ncounts multiplicitous. Yet multiplicity is among the majers\\nthat must be raised before trial. Fed. R. Crim. P.\\n12(b)(3)(B)(ii). Consideration of the argument now depends\\nnot only on a demonstration of plain error (the standard for\\nall contentions first presented on appeal) but also on a\\ndemonstration of good cause. Boliaux does not argue that he\\nhad good cause—or any cause at all—for delay in making\\nthis argument. We therefore do not consider it.\\n One evidentiary contention requires a few words. John\\nBrincat appeared for the prosecution as an expert witness on\\nthe topic of floorplanning. He explained to the jury how\\nthese loans are made and why lenders’ risk is increased by\\nthe existence of multiple title certificates and multiple loans\\nagainst a single vehicle. The district judge found this testi-\\nmony proper under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Still, Boliaux contends\\nthat the testimony should have been barred because Brincat\\nacted as both an expert witness and a fact witness, a dual\\nrole that may leave the jury confused about how to treat the\\ntestimony. See, e.g., United States v. Je@, 908 F.3d 252, 267–68\\n(7th Cir. 2018). The district court disagreed, stating: “The tes-\\ntimony elicited by the government from witness Brincat was\\nlimited to his role as an industry expert and did not stray\\ninto fact-witness territory”. Boliaux contests this by observ-\\ning that Brincat testified about how the whole floorplan-\\nlending industry works, and Boliaux insists that because\\nBrincat is employed by Automotive Finance Corp. (AFC),\\none of the defrauded lenders, the jury likely would have un-\\nderstood him to be a fact witness.\\n The district judge did not abuse his discretion by per-\\nmijing Brincat to testify. He did not describe any special fea-\\n\\fNo. 18-1322 7\\n\\ntures of AFC’s practices or any of the dealings between AFC\\nand Boliaux. The jury surely understood Brincat to be testi-\\nfying exclusively as an expert. We are surprised that the\\nprosecutor would present Brincat as an expert, enabling the\\ndefense to paint a vital witness as biased, but puzzling deci-\\nsions do not make evidence inadmissible.\\n Boliaux presents a few additional arguments, which do\\nnot require discussion. They have been considered and are\\nrejected.\\n We promised earlier to return to how Boliaux has treated\\nthe district court’s explanations for its decisions. Circuit Rule\\n30(b)(1) requires every appellant to include, in an appendix\\nto the brief, “[c]opies of any … opinions, orders, or oral rul-\\nings in the case that address the issues sought to be raised.”\\nCircuit Rule 30(d) adds: “The appendix to each appellant’s\\nbrief shall contain a statement that all of the materials re-\\nquired by parts (a) and (b) of this rule are included.”\\nBoliaux’s brief, signed by Andrew S. Gable of Chicago, con-\\ntains the required certification. But it is false. The appendix\\nomits the district court’s statement of its reasons for finding\\nthe evidence sufficient, finding the duplicity argument (and\\nthe proposed unanimity instruction) forfeited under Rule\\n12(b), and permijing Brincat to testify. (The opinion ad-\\ndresses other topics as well.) The appendix also omits sub-\\nstantial parts of the district judge’s mid-trial discussions of\\nthese and other issues. Was Gable hoping that we would not\\ndiscover those rulings?\\n False representations to the court of appeals have conse-\\nquences. In civil litigation a false certificate of compliance\\nwith Circuit Rule 30(a) and (b) leads to summary affirmance\\nor dismissal of the appeal. See, e.g., Urso v. United States, 72\\n\\f8 No. 18-1322\\n\\nF.3d 59, 61–62 (7th Cir. 1995); Mortell v. Mortell Co., 887 F.2d\\n1322, 1327 (7th Cir. 1989); Teitelbaum v. Curtis Publishing Co.,\\n314 F.2d 94, 95–96 (7th Cir. 1963); Sparrow v. Yellow Cab Co.,\\n273 F.2d 1, 4 (7th Cir. 1959); Chicago & Eastern Illinois Ry. v.\\nSouthern Ry., 261 F.2d 394, 400 n.7 (7th Cir. 1958). The client\\nthen may be able to recover from counsel for malpractice.\\nWe concluded in United States v. Smith, 953 F.2d 1060, 1068\\n(7th Cir. 1992), that this would not be appropriate in criminal\\ncases, where defendants have difficulty monitoring their\\nlawyers’ performance—and where dismissal of the appeal or\\nsummary affirmance would lead straight to a decision find-\\ning that counsel had furnished ineffective assistance, which\\nwould authorize a new appeal. It is best in criminal cases to\\ngive the defendant plenary appellate review, as we have\\ndone, and penalize the lawyer directly. See In re Galvan, 92\\nF.3d 582 (7th Cir. 1996). See also Guentchev v. INS, 77 F.3d\\n1036 (7th Cir. 1996) (same approach in immigration law).\\n Galvan established $1,000 as the presumptive fine for a\\nviolation of Circuit Rule 30 in a criminal case. 92 F.3d at 584–\\n85. See also, e.g., United States v. Evans, 270 F.3d 1076, 1085\\n(7th Cir. 2001). Adjusting for inflation, $1,000 in 1996 is\\nequivalent to $1,597 today. This implies that the presumptive\\nfine should become $1,600.\\n Counsel has 14 days to show cause why he should not be\\nfined $1,600, and reprimanded, for his violation of Circuit\\nRule 30(b) and his false statement under Circuit Rule 30(d).\\n The judgment is affirmed, and an order to show cause\\nwill be issued.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":698,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4590160,"string":"4,590,160"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"RED BARN MOTORS, INC., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Red Barn Motors, Inc. v. NextGear Capital, Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-13"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1409"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Wood, Rovner, Brennan\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1409\\nRED BARN MOTORS, INC., et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nNEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC.,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:14-cv-01589-TWP-DML — Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 13, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and BRENNAN, Cir-\\ncuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents us with only\\nthe narrow issue of whether the district court erred in rescind-\\ning class certification. The defendant-appellee, NextGear\\nCapital, Inc., formerly known as Dealer Services Corporation,\\nprovided lines of credit for financing the operations of used\\ncar dealerships. The plaintiffs Red Barn Motors, Inc., Plati-\\nnum Motors, Inc. and Mattingly Auto Sales, Inc., operated\\n\\f2 No. 18-1409\\n\\nused car dealerships, and were solicited by NextGear to enter\\ninto a contract called a Demand Promissory Note and Secu-\\nrity Agreement (the “Agreement”), whereby NextGear would\\nissue a line of credit for them to access in purchasing used ve-\\nhicles at automobile auctions. Those agreements provided the\\nplaintiffs with a revolving line of credit, called a floorplan\\nagreement, to purchase vehicles at the auction which they\\nsubsequently would sell at their dealerships.\\n In the typical auction and financing transaction, a new car\\ndealer provides a trade-in vehicle to an auction company,\\nwhich presents the vehicle to used car dealers at an auction.\\nIf a used car dealer’s bid is accepted, that dealer takes posses-\\nsion of the vehicle. The dealer then either pays the auction\\ncompany directly or utilizes an automotive financing com-\\npany such as NextGear, which pays the auction company and\\nprovides financing by means of the floorplan agreement to\\nthe dealer for repayment. The auction company forwards the\\ntitle to the entity that paid for the vehicle—either the used car\\ndealer or the financing company. According to the plaintiffs,\\nNextGear deviated from that sequence. It did not pay the auc-\\ntion house at the time that possession was delivered, instead\\npaying only after it received the title to the vehicles pur-\\nchased. Although it could take as long as eight weeks for\\nNextGear to receive that title and pay the money to the auc-\\ntion company, NextGear nevertheless charged interest and\\ncurtailment fees to the plaintiffs from the date of the initial\\npurchase. The plaintiffs brought this action challenging that\\nimposition of interest fees during the period prior to the re-\\nceipt of title, when NextGear was not yet paying any funds to\\nthe auction house. They sought class certification to pursue\\nthat challenge on behalf of all other dealers who were subject\\n\\fNo. 18-1409 3\\n\\nto the same Agreement with NextGear and were charged\\nsuch interest.\\n Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) sets forth explicit re-\\nquirements for a case to proceed as a class action:\\n (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all\\n members is impracticable (numerosity);\\n (2) there are questions of law or fact common\\n to the class (commonality);\\n (3) the claims or defenses of the representa-\\n tive parties are typical of the claims or defenses\\n of the class (typicality); and\\n (4) the representative parties will fairly and\\n adequately protect the interests of the class (ad-\\n equacy of representation).\\nChicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi-\\ncago, 797 F.3d 426, 433 (7th Cir. 2015). In addition, one of the\\nfour categories set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n23(b) must be met in order for a case to proceed as a class ac-\\ntion. The plaintiffs in this case assert that the case falls within\\nRule 23(b)(3) which considers whether “questions of law or\\nfact common to class members predominate over any ques-\\ntions affecting only individual members, and … a class action\\nis superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently\\nadjudicating the controversy.”\\n The plaintiffs’ amended complaint included numerous\\nclaims including breach of contract, constructive fraud, tor-\\ntious interference with business relationships, unjust enrich-\\nment, RICO violations, and RICO conspiracy. The district\\ncourt granted class certification as to the breach of contract\\n\\f4 No. 18-1409\\n\\nclaim against NextGear and the substantive RICO claim\\nagainst NextGear, Cox Automotive and John Wick pursuant\\nto Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). In an extensive 30-\\npage analysis, the court determined that the plaintiffs met all\\nof the requirements of the Rule 23(a) factors—ascertainability,\\nnumerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of repre-\\nsentation—and that the plaintiffs had also demonstrated un-\\nder Rule 23(b)(3) that a class action was superior to other\\nmethods of adjudication. Accordingly, on June 29, 2017, it\\ngranted class status as to those claims.\\n Approximately two weeks later, NextGear filed a Motion\\nto Reconsider and/or Modify Class Certification Order. It ar-\\ngued that the court failed to consider evidence and arguments\\nsubmitted after the initial class certification briefing. Specifi-\\ncally, NextGear maintained that the plaintiffs had asserted for\\nthe first time in summary judgment briefing that the floorplan\\nagreements are ambiguous on their face, and that under such\\na theory courts must resort to extrinsic evidence on a plaintiff-\\nby-plaintiff basis to determine the parties’ intent regarding\\nthe contract. NextGear argued to the district court that “when\\nambiguity in a contract has ‘open[ed] the door for extrinsic\\nevidence,’ then ‘liability to the entire class for breach of con-\\ntract cannot be established with common evidence.’” Dist. Ct.\\nOrder on Pending Motions (1/12/2018) at 5, citing Avritt v. Re-\\nliastar Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 1023, 1030 (8th Cir. 2010).\\n In response, the plaintiffs argued that NextGear presented\\nno new arguments that would warrant reconsideration, and\\nthat the argument concerning ambiguous contracts and the\\nimpact on class certification had already been presented in the\\nDefendants’ Notice of Additional Authority and at oral argu-\\nment on class certification. In addition, they argued that\\n\\fNo. 18-1409 5\\n\\nNextGear had mischaracterized their ambiguity argument.\\nThe plaintiffs asserted that they continued to argue that the\\ncontracts were unambiguous, and that only in the alternative\\ndid they raise an argument of ambiguity. Moreover, under\\nthat alternative theory of ambiguity, they maintain that the\\ncourt would not be required to consider extrinsic evidence\\nand that only common evidence would be required to resolve\\nthe claims.\\n Noting that it had the discretion to modify its certification\\norder in light of subsequent developments in litigation, the\\ncourt held that class certification was not appropriate. In stark\\ncontrast to the extensive analysis in its decision granting class\\ncertification, the court’s explanation for its decision to rescind\\ncertification was terse, consisting, in its entirety, of the follow-\\ning:\\n The most important and significant develop-\\n ment when considering the pending Motion to\\n Reconsider is the Plaintiffs’ theory that the\\n floorplan agreements forming the basis of their\\n claims are ambiguous. The Court understands\\n the Plaintiffs’ argument that the contracts are\\n ambiguous on their face (patent ambiguity) and\\n that such an ambiguity does not require consid-\\n eration of extrinsic evidence, and in turn, does\\n not require individualized proof. The Court\\n agrees with the Plaintiffs that the contracts at is-\\n sue are ambiguous; however, the Court agrees\\n with the Defendants that ambiguity in the con-\\n tracts requires consideration of extrinsic evi-\\n dence, necessitates individualized proof, and\\n undermines the elements of commonality and\\n\\f6 No. 18-1409\\n\\n predominance for class certification. Thus, class\\n certification is not appropriate on the Plaintiffs’\\n breach of contract claim. The Court directs the\\n parties to its Order on Motions for Summary\\n Judgment where the Court more fully reviews,\\n analyzes, and discusses the parties’ arguments\\n regarding ambiguity.\\nId. at 8. Based on that reasoning, the court then proceeded to\\ndetermine that class certification was unwarranted regarding\\nthe substantive RICO claim as well.\\n We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny cer-\\ntification for abuse of discretion. Chicago Teachers Union, Local\\nNo. 1, 797 F.3d at 433. We have recognized, however, that such\\nreview, while deferential, “can and must also be exacting.” Id.\\nA decision to deny or grant certification can have a consider-\\nable impact on the playing field of litigation and requires a\\nrigorous analysis. Id.; Bell v. PNC Bank, National Association,\\n800 F.3d 360, 373 (7th Cir. 2015)\\n The court’s denial of class certification lacks sufficient rea-\\nsoning for our court, on review, to ascertain the basis of its\\ndecision. Although the decision to grant class certification\\nwas a model of clarity and thoroughness, analyzing the fac-\\ntors in detail, the decision withdrawing class status provides\\nonly the conclusion that an ambiguous contract “requires con-\\nsideration of extrinsic evidence, necessitates individualized\\nproof, and undermines the elements of commonality and pre-\\ndominance for class certification.” Nor does the reference to\\nits Order on Motions for Summary Judgment lend any in-\\nsight. In that Order, the district court held that the floorplan\\ncontracts were ambiguous as to when interest could begin to\\naccrue, which required consideration of extrinsic evidence.\\n\\fNo. 18-1409 7\\n\\nThe court noted that the parties had designated evidence sug-\\ngesting that various party representatives had conversations\\nabout NextGear’s interest practices after the contracts were\\nexecuted, but that evidence did not establish an undisputed\\nfactual basis supporting either sides’ position as to the inter-\\npretation of the contract or the parties’ intent. Accordingly,\\nthe court deemed the matter inappropriate for summary\\njudgment.\\n Those holdings are insufficient to sustain the court’s as-\\nsumption that commonality and predominance were lacking.\\nNeither the categorization of the contract as ambiguous, nor\\nthe prospect of extrinsic evidence, necessarily imperils class\\nstatus. All parties concede that the floorplan contract in this\\ncase is a standard form contract. And neither the plaintiffs nor\\nthe defendants argue that the language in the contract has dif-\\nferent meaning for different signatories; instead, all argue for\\nan interpretation that would apply to all signatories of the\\ncontract. In fact, with a form contract such as this one, uniform\\napplication and interpretation of the clauses would be ex-\\npected absent evidence that the form contracts in fact had a\\nmeaning that varied from one signatory to another. Even if\\nthe determination that the language is ambiguous as to when\\ninterest could accrue opens the door to extrinsic evidence to\\nascertain the intended meaning of that provision, the deter-\\nmination of its meaning would apply to all signatories and\\ntherefore would be capable of class-wide resolution.\\n In fact, the court discussed that possibility in its initial de-\\ntermination to certify the class. In analyzing the commonality\\nfactor, the district court addressed the defendants’ argument\\nthat certain questions, such as “whether NextGear made any\\n\\f8 No. 18-1409\\n\\nrepresentations to any putative class members about when in-\\nterest would begin to accrue … must be proven separately as\\nto each dealer, and thus, the answers can only be determined\\non an individual, not a classwide, basis.” Dist. Ct. Entry on\\nPlaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (06/29/2017) at 16.\\nThe court rejected that argument. First, the court noted that\\ncommonality requires a demonstration that class members\\nhave suffered the same injury and held that the standard was\\nmet because the plaintiffs had demonstrated that the class\\nmembers “suffered the same alleged wrongful, premature\\ncollection of interest and fees based on the same form contract\\nand similar conduct by NextGear.” Id. at 18; see also Wal-Mart\\nStores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349–50 (2011). The court fur-\\nther explained that “commonality exists where the ‘determi-\\nnation of [the question] will resolve an issue that is central to\\nthe validity of each one of the claims in one stroke,’ and where\\nit will ‘generate common answers apt to drive the resolution\\nof the litigation.’” (emphasis in original) Id., citing Wal-Mart,\\n564 U.S. at 349–50.\\n Therefore, when presented with the same issue in its ini-\\ntial class certification decision—the ambiguity as to when in-\\nterest would accrue—the court concluded that the ambiguity\\ndid not prevent class certification because it was capable of a\\ncommon answer. The court has not explained why a different\\nconclusion to that question was reached in the Motion for Re-\\nconsideration, instead mentioning only the need for extrinsic\\nevidence.\\n But the mere need for extrinsic evidence does not in itself\\nrender a case an improper vehicle for class litigation. We have\\nconsidered numerous cases in which the testimony of indi-\\n\\fNo. 18-1409 9\\n\\nviduals would be necessary to establish the meaning or exist-\\nence of a policy, and the prospect of such individual testi-\\nmony did not render class status improper. See, e.g., Bell, 800\\nF.3d at 375 (discussing testimony of individuals which suffi-\\nciently presented the issue of whether PNC had an unofficial\\npolicy or practice that required employees classwide to work\\noff-the-clock overtime hours); Phillips v. Sheriff of Cook County,\\n828 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2016) (upholding decertification where\\nevidence from individual detainees did not indicate a sys-\\ntemic practice that could tie all of the claims together, but rec-\\nognizing that the district court allowed certification of a nar-\\nrower class where one common policy of staffing the jail with\\nonly one dentist might constitute systemic deliberate indiffer-\\nence). The proper focus for commonality is whether determi-\\nnation of the question will yield common answers that could\\nresolve the litigation. Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 349–50. Here, the\\nclass was already narrowed to those who signed the specific\\nform contract at issue here. With such a form contract, almost\\nuniversally signed without negotiation or modification, there\\nis no reason to think that the interpretation of the provision\\nwill vary from one signatory to another, and therefore the is-\\nsue is one that is capable of a common answer and for which\\nthat common question predominates over questions affecting\\nindividual class members. The district court, to conclude oth-\\nerwise, would have to identify why that extrinsic evidence\\nwould lead to another conclusion. But here, although the case\\nwas nearing the trial date, we have no indication as to what\\nevidence the court believed would render class certification\\nimproper. See Bell, 800 F.3d at 377, quoting Szabo v. Bridgeport\\nMachs, Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 676 (7th Cir. 2001) (“[i]f there are\\nmaterial factual disputes that bear on the requirements for\\nclass certification, the court must ‘receive evidence if only by\\n\\f10 No. 18-1409\\n\\naffidavit and resolve the disputes before deciding whether to\\ncertify the class.’”)(emphasis omitted). Absent a more thor-\\nough explanation of its reasoning, we cannot uphold the de-\\ncision decertifying the class.\\n The decision of the district court is VACATED and the\\ncase REMANDED for further proceedings.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4367413/\", \"author_raw\": \"Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4590160/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: RED BARN MOTORS, INC., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-13\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1409\nRED BARN MOTORS, INC., et al.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n v.\n\nNEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC.,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\n No. 1:14-cv-01589-TWP-DML — Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 13, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and BRENNAN, Cir-\ncuit Judges.\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents us with only\nthe narrow issue of whether the district court erred in rescind-\ning class certification. The defendant-appellee, NextGear\nCapital, Inc., formerly known as Dealer Services Corporation,\nprovided lines of credit for financing the operations of used\ncar dealerships. The plaintiffs Red Barn Motors, Inc., Plati-\nnum Motors, Inc. and Mattingly Auto Sales, Inc., operated\n\f2 No. 18-1409\n\nused car dealerships, and were solicited by NextGear to enter\ninto a contract called a Demand Promissory Note and Secu-\nrity Agreement (the “Agreement”), whereby NextGear would\nissue a line of credit for them to access in purchasing used ve-\nhicles at automobile auctions. Those agreements provided the\nplaintiffs with a revolving line of credit, called a floorplan\nagreement, to purchase vehicles at the auction which they\nsubsequently would sell at their dealerships.\n In the typical auction and financing transaction, a new car\ndealer provides a trade-in vehicle to an auction company,\nwhich presents the vehicle to used car dealers at an auction.\nIf a used car dealer’s bid is accepted, that dealer takes posses-\nsion of the vehicle. The dealer then either pays the auction\ncompany directly or utilizes an automotive financing com-\npany such as NextGear, which pays the auction company and\nprovides financing by means of the floorplan agreement to\nthe dealer for repayment. The auction company forwards the\ntitle to the entity that paid for the vehicle—either the used car\ndealer or the financing company. According to the plaintiffs,\nNextGear deviated from that sequence. It did not pay the auc-\ntion house at the time that possession was delivered, instead\npaying only after it received the title to the vehicles pur-\nchased. Although it could take as long as eight weeks for\nNextGear to receive that title and pay the money to the auc-\ntion company, NextGear nevertheless charged interest and\ncurtailment fees to the plaintiffs from the date of the initial\npurchase. The plaintiffs brought this action challenging that\nimposition of interest fees during the period prior to the re-\nceipt of title, when NextGear was not yet paying any funds to\nthe auction house. They sought class certification to pursue\nthat challenge on behalf of all other dealers who were subject\n\fNo. 18-1409 3\n\nto the same Agreement with NextGear and were charged\nsuch interest.\n Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) sets forth explicit re-\nquirements for a case to proceed as a class action:\n (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all\n members is impracticable (numerosity);\n (2) there are questions of law or fact common\n to the class (commonality);\n (3) the claims or defenses of the representa-\n tive parties are typical of the claims or defenses\n of the class (typicality); and\n (4) the representative parties will fairly and\n adequately protect the interests of the class (ad-\n equacy of representation).\nChicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi-\ncago, 797 F.3d 426, 433 (7th Cir. 2015). In addition, one of the\nfour categories set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n23(b) must be met in order for a case to proceed as a class ac-\ntion. The plaintiffs in this case assert that the case falls within\nRule 23(b)(3) which considers whether “questions of law or\nfact common to class members predominate over any ques-\ntions affecting only individual members, and … a class action\nis superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently\nadjudicating the controversy.”\n The plaintiffs’ amended complaint included numerous\nclaims including breach of contract, constructive fraud, tor-\ntious interference with business relationships, unjust enrich-\nment, RICO violations, and RICO conspiracy. The district\ncourt granted class certification as to the breach of contract\n\f4 No. 18-1409\n\nclaim against NextGear and the substantive RICO claim\nagainst NextGear, Cox Automotive and John Wick pursuant\nto Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). In an extensive 30-\npage analysis, the court determined that the plaintiffs met all\nof the requirements of the Rule 23(a) factors—ascertainability,\nnumerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of repre-\nsentation—and that the plaintiffs had also demonstrated un-\nder Rule 23(b)(3) that a class action was superior to other\nmethods of adjudication. Accordingly, on June 29, 2017, it\ngranted class status as to those claims.\n Approximately two weeks later, NextGear filed a Motion\nto Reconsider and/or Modify Class Certification Order. It ar-\ngued that the court failed to consider evidence and arguments\nsubmitted after the initial class certification briefing. Specifi-\ncally, NextGear maintained that the plaintiffs had asserted for\nthe first time in summary judgment briefing that the floorplan\nagreements are ambiguous on their face, and that under such\na theory courts must resort to extrinsic evidence on a plaintiff-\nby-plaintiff basis to determine the parties’ intent regarding\nthe contract. NextGear argued to the district court that “when\nambiguity in a contract has ‘open[ed] the door for extrinsic\nevidence,’ then ‘liability to the entire class for breach of con-\ntract cannot be established with common evidence.’” Dist. Ct.\nOrder on Pending Motions (1/12/2018) at 5, citing Avritt v. Re-\nliastar Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 1023, 1030 (8th Cir. 2010).\n In response, the plaintiffs argued that NextGear presented\nno new arguments that would warrant reconsideration, and\nthat the argument concerning ambiguous contracts and the\nimpact on class certification had already been presented in the\nDefendants’ Notice of Additional Authority and at oral argu-\nment on class certification. In addition, they argued that\n\fNo. 18-1409 5\n\nNextGear had mischaracterized their ambiguity argument.\nThe plaintiffs asserted that they continued to argue that the\ncontracts were unambiguous, and that only in the alternative\ndid they raise an argument of ambiguity. Moreover, under\nthat alternative theory of ambiguity, they maintain that the\ncourt would not be required to consider extrinsic evidence\nand that only common evidence would be required to resolve\nthe claims.\n Noting that it had the discretion to modify its certification\norder in light of subsequent developments in litigation, the\ncourt held that class certification was not appropriate. In stark\ncontrast to the extensive analysis in its decision granting class\ncertification, the court’s explanation for its decision to rescind\ncertification was terse, consisting, in its entirety, of the follow-\ning:\n The most important and significant develop-\n ment when considering the pending Motion to\n Reconsider is the Plaintiffs’ theory that the\n floorplan agreements forming the basis of their\n claims are ambiguous. The Court understands\n the Plaintiffs’ argument that the contracts are\n ambiguous on their face (patent ambiguity) and\n that such an ambiguity does not require consid-\n eration of extrinsic evidence, and in turn, does\n not require individualized proof. The Court\n agrees with the Plaintiffs that the contracts at is-\n sue are ambiguous; however, the Court agrees\n with the Defendants that ambiguity in the con-\n tracts requires consideration of extrinsic evi-\n dence, necessitates individualized proof, and\n undermines the elements of commonality and\n\f6 No. 18-1409\n\n predominance for class certification. Thus, class\n certification is not appropriate on the Plaintiffs’\n breach of contract claim. The Court directs the\n parties to its Order on Motions for Summary\n Judgment where the Court more fully reviews,\n analyzes, and discusses the parties’ arguments\n regarding ambiguity.\nId. at 8. Based on that reasoning, the court then proceeded to\ndetermine that class certification was unwarranted regarding\nthe substantive RICO claim as well.\n We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny cer-\ntification for abuse of discretion. Chicago Teachers Union, Local\nNo. 1, 797 F.3d at 433. We have recognized, however, that such\nreview, while deferential, “can and must also be exacting.” Id.\nA decision to deny or grant certification can have a consider-\nable impact on the playing field of litigation and requires a\nrigorous analysis. Id.; Bell v. PNC Bank, National Association,\n800 F.3d 360, 373 (7th Cir. 2015)\n The court’s denial of class certification lacks sufficient rea-\nsoning for our court, on review, to ascertain the basis of its\ndecision. Although the decision to grant class certification\nwas a model of clarity and thoroughness, analyzing the fac-\ntors in detail, the decision withdrawing class status provides\nonly the conclusion that an ambiguous contract “requires con-\nsideration of extrinsic evidence, necessitates individualized\nproof, and undermines the elements of commonality and pre-\ndominance for class certification.” Nor does the reference to\nits Order on Motions for Summary Judgment lend any in-\nsight. In that Order, the district court held that the floorplan\ncontracts were ambiguous as to when interest could begin to\naccrue, which required consideration of extrinsic evidence.\n\fNo. 18-1409 7\n\nThe court noted that the parties had designated evidence sug-\ngesting that various party representatives had conversations\nabout NextGear’s interest practices after the contracts were\nexecuted, but that evidence did not establish an undisputed\nfactual basis supporting either sides’ position as to the inter-\npretation of the contract or the parties’ intent. Accordingly,\nthe court deemed the matter inappropriate for summary\njudgment.\n Those holdings are insufficient to sustain the court’s as-\nsumption that commonality and predominance were lacking.\nNeither the categorization of the contract as ambiguous, nor\nthe prospect of extrinsic evidence, necessarily imperils class\nstatus. All parties concede that the floorplan contract in this\ncase is a standard form contract. And neither the plaintiffs nor\nthe defendants argue that the language in the contract has dif-\nferent meaning for different signatories; instead, all argue for\nan interpretation that would apply to all signatories of the\ncontract. In fact, with a form contract such as this one, uniform\napplication and interpretation of the clauses would be ex-\npected absent evidence that the form contracts in fact had a\nmeaning that varied from one signatory to another. Even if\nthe determination that the language is ambiguous as to when\ninterest could accrue opens the door to extrinsic evidence to\nascertain the intended meaning of that provision, the deter-\nmination of its meaning would apply to all signatories and\ntherefore would be capable of class-wide resolution.\n In fact, the court discussed that possibility in its initial de-\ntermination to certify the class. In analyzing the commonality\nfactor, the district court addressed the defendants’ argument\nthat certain questions, such as “whether NextGear made any\n\f8 No. 18-1409\n\nrepresentations to any putative class members about when in-\nterest would begin to accrue … must be proven separately as\nto each dealer, and thus, the answers can only be determined\non an individual, not a classwide, basis.” Dist. Ct. Entry on\nPlaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (06/29/2017) at 16.\nThe court rejected that argument. First, the court noted that\ncommonality requires a demonstration that class members\nhave suffered the same injury and held that the standard was\nmet because the plaintiffs had demonstrated that the class\nmembers “suffered the same alleged wrongful, premature\ncollection of interest and fees based on the same form contract\nand similar conduct by NextGear.” Id. at 18; see also Wal-Mart\nStores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349–50 (2011). The court fur-\nther explained that “commonality exists where the ‘determi-\nnation of [the question] will resolve an issue that is central to\nthe validity of each one of the claims in one stroke,’ and where\nit will ‘generate common answers apt to drive the resolution\nof the litigation.’” (emphasis in original) Id., citing Wal-Mart,\n564 U.S. at 349–50.\n Therefore, when presented with the same issue in its ini-\ntial class certification decision—the ambiguity as to when in-\nterest would accrue—the court concluded that the ambiguity\ndid not prevent class certification because it was capable of a\ncommon answer. The court has not explained why a different\nconclusion to that question was reached in the Motion for Re-\nconsideration, instead mentioning only the need for extrinsic\nevidence.\n But the mere need for extrinsic evidence does not in itself\nrender a case an improper vehicle for class litigation. We have\nconsidered numerous cases in which the testimony of indi-\n\fNo. 18-1409 9\n\nviduals would be necessary to establish the meaning or exist-\nence of a policy, and the prospect of such individual testi-\nmony did not render class status improper. See, e.g., Bell, 800\nF.3d at 375 (discussing testimony of individuals which suffi-\nciently presented the issue of whether PNC had an unofficial\npolicy or practice that required employees classwide to work\noff-the-clock overtime hours); Phillips v. Sheriff of Cook County,\n828 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2016) (upholding decertification where\nevidence from individual detainees did not indicate a sys-\ntemic practice that could tie all of the claims together, but rec-\nognizing that the district court allowed certification of a nar-\nrower class where one common policy of staffing the jail with\nonly one dentist might constitute systemic deliberate indiffer-\nence). The proper focus for commonality is whether determi-\nnation of the question will yield common answers that could\nresolve the litigation. Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 349–50. Here, the\nclass was already narrowed to those who signed the specific\nform contract at issue here. With such a form contract, almost\nuniversally signed without negotiation or modification, there\nis no reason to think that the interpretation of the provision\nwill vary from one signatory to another, and therefore the is-\nsue is one that is capable of a common answer and for which\nthat common question predominates over questions affecting\nindividual class members. The district court, to conclude oth-\nerwise, would have to identify why that extrinsic evidence\nwould lead to another conclusion. But here, although the case\nwas nearing the trial date, we have no indication as to what\nevidence the court believed would render class certification\nimproper. See Bell, 800 F.3d at 377, quoting Szabo v. Bridgeport\nMachs, Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 676 (7th Cir. 2001) (“[i]f there are\nmaterial factual disputes that bear on the requirements for\nclass certification, the court must ‘receive evidence if only by\n\f10 No. 18-1409\n\naffidavit and resolve the disputes before deciding whether to\ncertify the class.’”)(emphasis omitted). Absent a more thor-\nough explanation of its reasoning, we cannot uphold the de-\ncision decertifying the class.\n The decision of the district court is VACATED and the\ncase REMANDED for further proceedings.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: RED BARN MOTORS, INC., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-13\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1409\\nRED BARN MOTORS, INC., et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nNEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC.,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:14-cv-01589-TWP-DML — Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 13, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and BRENNAN, Cir-\\ncuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents us with only\\nthe narrow issue of whether the district court erred in rescind-\\ning class certification. The defendant-appellee, NextGear\\nCapital, Inc., formerly known as Dealer Services Corporation,\\nprovided lines of credit for financing the operations of used\\ncar dealerships. The plaintiffs Red Barn Motors, Inc., Plati-\\nnum Motors, Inc. and Mattingly Auto Sales, Inc., operated\\n\\f2 No. 18-1409\\n\\nused car dealerships, and were solicited by NextGear to enter\\ninto a contract called a Demand Promissory Note and Secu-\\nrity Agreement (the “Agreement”), whereby NextGear would\\nissue a line of credit for them to access in purchasing used ve-\\nhicles at automobile auctions. Those agreements provided the\\nplaintiffs with a revolving line of credit, called a floorplan\\nagreement, to purchase vehicles at the auction which they\\nsubsequently would sell at their dealerships.\\n In the typical auction and financing transaction, a new car\\ndealer provides a trade-in vehicle to an auction company,\\nwhich presents the vehicle to used car dealers at an auction.\\nIf a used car dealer’s bid is accepted, that dealer takes posses-\\nsion of the vehicle. The dealer then either pays the auction\\ncompany directly or utilizes an automotive financing com-\\npany such as NextGear, which pays the auction company and\\nprovides financing by means of the floorplan agreement to\\nthe dealer for repayment. The auction company forwards the\\ntitle to the entity that paid for the vehicle—either the used car\\ndealer or the financing company. According to the plaintiffs,\\nNextGear deviated from that sequence. It did not pay the auc-\\ntion house at the time that possession was delivered, instead\\npaying only after it received the title to the vehicles pur-\\nchased. Although it could take as long as eight weeks for\\nNextGear to receive that title and pay the money to the auc-\\ntion company, NextGear nevertheless charged interest and\\ncurtailment fees to the plaintiffs from the date of the initial\\npurchase. The plaintiffs brought this action challenging that\\nimposition of interest fees during the period prior to the re-\\nceipt of title, when NextGear was not yet paying any funds to\\nthe auction house. They sought class certification to pursue\\nthat challenge on behalf of all other dealers who were subject\\n\\fNo. 18-1409 3\\n\\nto the same Agreement with NextGear and were charged\\nsuch interest.\\n Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) sets forth explicit re-\\nquirements for a case to proceed as a class action:\\n (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all\\n members is impracticable (numerosity);\\n (2) there are questions of law or fact common\\n to the class (commonality);\\n (3) the claims or defenses of the representa-\\n tive parties are typical of the claims or defenses\\n of the class (typicality); and\\n (4) the representative parties will fairly and\\n adequately protect the interests of the class (ad-\\n equacy of representation).\\nChicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi-\\ncago, 797 F.3d 426, 433 (7th Cir. 2015). In addition, one of the\\nfour categories set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n23(b) must be met in order for a case to proceed as a class ac-\\ntion. The plaintiffs in this case assert that the case falls within\\nRule 23(b)(3) which considers whether “questions of law or\\nfact common to class members predominate over any ques-\\ntions affecting only individual members, and … a class action\\nis superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently\\nadjudicating the controversy.”\\n The plaintiffs’ amended complaint included numerous\\nclaims including breach of contract, constructive fraud, tor-\\ntious interference with business relationships, unjust enrich-\\nment, RICO violations, and RICO conspiracy. The district\\ncourt granted class certification as to the breach of contract\\n\\f4 No. 18-1409\\n\\nclaim against NextGear and the substantive RICO claim\\nagainst NextGear, Cox Automotive and John Wick pursuant\\nto Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). In an extensive 30-\\npage analysis, the court determined that the plaintiffs met all\\nof the requirements of the Rule 23(a) factors—ascertainability,\\nnumerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of repre-\\nsentation—and that the plaintiffs had also demonstrated un-\\nder Rule 23(b)(3) that a class action was superior to other\\nmethods of adjudication. Accordingly, on June 29, 2017, it\\ngranted class status as to those claims.\\n Approximately two weeks later, NextGear filed a Motion\\nto Reconsider and/or Modify Class Certification Order. It ar-\\ngued that the court failed to consider evidence and arguments\\nsubmitted after the initial class certification briefing. Specifi-\\ncally, NextGear maintained that the plaintiffs had asserted for\\nthe first time in summary judgment briefing that the floorplan\\nagreements are ambiguous on their face, and that under such\\na theory courts must resort to extrinsic evidence on a plaintiff-\\nby-plaintiff basis to determine the parties’ intent regarding\\nthe contract. NextGear argued to the district court that “when\\nambiguity in a contract has ‘open[ed] the door for extrinsic\\nevidence,’ then ‘liability to the entire class for breach of con-\\ntract cannot be established with common evidence.’” Dist. Ct.\\nOrder on Pending Motions (1/12/2018) at 5, citing Avritt v. Re-\\nliastar Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 1023, 1030 (8th Cir. 2010).\\n In response, the plaintiffs argued that NextGear presented\\nno new arguments that would warrant reconsideration, and\\nthat the argument concerning ambiguous contracts and the\\nimpact on class certification had already been presented in the\\nDefendants’ Notice of Additional Authority and at oral argu-\\nment on class certification. In addition, they argued that\\n\\fNo. 18-1409 5\\n\\nNextGear had mischaracterized their ambiguity argument.\\nThe plaintiffs asserted that they continued to argue that the\\ncontracts were unambiguous, and that only in the alternative\\ndid they raise an argument of ambiguity. Moreover, under\\nthat alternative theory of ambiguity, they maintain that the\\ncourt would not be required to consider extrinsic evidence\\nand that only common evidence would be required to resolve\\nthe claims.\\n Noting that it had the discretion to modify its certification\\norder in light of subsequent developments in litigation, the\\ncourt held that class certification was not appropriate. In stark\\ncontrast to the extensive analysis in its decision granting class\\ncertification, the court’s explanation for its decision to rescind\\ncertification was terse, consisting, in its entirety, of the follow-\\ning:\\n The most important and significant develop-\\n ment when considering the pending Motion to\\n Reconsider is the Plaintiffs’ theory that the\\n floorplan agreements forming the basis of their\\n claims are ambiguous. The Court understands\\n the Plaintiffs’ argument that the contracts are\\n ambiguous on their face (patent ambiguity) and\\n that such an ambiguity does not require consid-\\n eration of extrinsic evidence, and in turn, does\\n not require individualized proof. The Court\\n agrees with the Plaintiffs that the contracts at is-\\n sue are ambiguous; however, the Court agrees\\n with the Defendants that ambiguity in the con-\\n tracts requires consideration of extrinsic evi-\\n dence, necessitates individualized proof, and\\n undermines the elements of commonality and\\n\\f6 No. 18-1409\\n\\n predominance for class certification. Thus, class\\n certification is not appropriate on the Plaintiffs’\\n breach of contract claim. The Court directs the\\n parties to its Order on Motions for Summary\\n Judgment where the Court more fully reviews,\\n analyzes, and discusses the parties’ arguments\\n regarding ambiguity.\\nId. at 8. Based on that reasoning, the court then proceeded to\\ndetermine that class certification was unwarranted regarding\\nthe substantive RICO claim as well.\\n We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny cer-\\ntification for abuse of discretion. Chicago Teachers Union, Local\\nNo. 1, 797 F.3d at 433. We have recognized, however, that such\\nreview, while deferential, “can and must also be exacting.” Id.\\nA decision to deny or grant certification can have a consider-\\nable impact on the playing field of litigation and requires a\\nrigorous analysis. Id.; Bell v. PNC Bank, National Association,\\n800 F.3d 360, 373 (7th Cir. 2015)\\n The court’s denial of class certification lacks sufficient rea-\\nsoning for our court, on review, to ascertain the basis of its\\ndecision. Although the decision to grant class certification\\nwas a model of clarity and thoroughness, analyzing the fac-\\ntors in detail, the decision withdrawing class status provides\\nonly the conclusion that an ambiguous contract “requires con-\\nsideration of extrinsic evidence, necessitates individualized\\nproof, and undermines the elements of commonality and pre-\\ndominance for class certification.” Nor does the reference to\\nits Order on Motions for Summary Judgment lend any in-\\nsight. In that Order, the district court held that the floorplan\\ncontracts were ambiguous as to when interest could begin to\\naccrue, which required consideration of extrinsic evidence.\\n\\fNo. 18-1409 7\\n\\nThe court noted that the parties had designated evidence sug-\\ngesting that various party representatives had conversations\\nabout NextGear’s interest practices after the contracts were\\nexecuted, but that evidence did not establish an undisputed\\nfactual basis supporting either sides’ position as to the inter-\\npretation of the contract or the parties’ intent. Accordingly,\\nthe court deemed the matter inappropriate for summary\\njudgment.\\n Those holdings are insufficient to sustain the court’s as-\\nsumption that commonality and predominance were lacking.\\nNeither the categorization of the contract as ambiguous, nor\\nthe prospect of extrinsic evidence, necessarily imperils class\\nstatus. All parties concede that the floorplan contract in this\\ncase is a standard form contract. And neither the plaintiffs nor\\nthe defendants argue that the language in the contract has dif-\\nferent meaning for different signatories; instead, all argue for\\nan interpretation that would apply to all signatories of the\\ncontract. In fact, with a form contract such as this one, uniform\\napplication and interpretation of the clauses would be ex-\\npected absent evidence that the form contracts in fact had a\\nmeaning that varied from one signatory to another. Even if\\nthe determination that the language is ambiguous as to when\\ninterest could accrue opens the door to extrinsic evidence to\\nascertain the intended meaning of that provision, the deter-\\nmination of its meaning would apply to all signatories and\\ntherefore would be capable of class-wide resolution.\\n In fact, the court discussed that possibility in its initial de-\\ntermination to certify the class. In analyzing the commonality\\nfactor, the district court addressed the defendants’ argument\\nthat certain questions, such as “whether NextGear made any\\n\\f8 No. 18-1409\\n\\nrepresentations to any putative class members about when in-\\nterest would begin to accrue … must be proven separately as\\nto each dealer, and thus, the answers can only be determined\\non an individual, not a classwide, basis.” Dist. Ct. Entry on\\nPlaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (06/29/2017) at 16.\\nThe court rejected that argument. First, the court noted that\\ncommonality requires a demonstration that class members\\nhave suffered the same injury and held that the standard was\\nmet because the plaintiffs had demonstrated that the class\\nmembers “suffered the same alleged wrongful, premature\\ncollection of interest and fees based on the same form contract\\nand similar conduct by NextGear.” Id. at 18; see also Wal-Mart\\nStores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349–50 (2011). The court fur-\\nther explained that “commonality exists where the ‘determi-\\nnation of [the question] will resolve an issue that is central to\\nthe validity of each one of the claims in one stroke,’ and where\\nit will ‘generate common answers apt to drive the resolution\\nof the litigation.’” (emphasis in original) Id., citing Wal-Mart,\\n564 U.S. at 349–50.\\n Therefore, when presented with the same issue in its ini-\\ntial class certification decision—the ambiguity as to when in-\\nterest would accrue—the court concluded that the ambiguity\\ndid not prevent class certification because it was capable of a\\ncommon answer. The court has not explained why a different\\nconclusion to that question was reached in the Motion for Re-\\nconsideration, instead mentioning only the need for extrinsic\\nevidence.\\n But the mere need for extrinsic evidence does not in itself\\nrender a case an improper vehicle for class litigation. We have\\nconsidered numerous cases in which the testimony of indi-\\n\\fNo. 18-1409 9\\n\\nviduals would be necessary to establish the meaning or exist-\\nence of a policy, and the prospect of such individual testi-\\nmony did not render class status improper. See, e.g., Bell, 800\\nF.3d at 375 (discussing testimony of individuals which suffi-\\nciently presented the issue of whether PNC had an unofficial\\npolicy or practice that required employees classwide to work\\noff-the-clock overtime hours); Phillips v. Sheriff of Cook County,\\n828 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2016) (upholding decertification where\\nevidence from individual detainees did not indicate a sys-\\ntemic practice that could tie all of the claims together, but rec-\\nognizing that the district court allowed certification of a nar-\\nrower class where one common policy of staffing the jail with\\nonly one dentist might constitute systemic deliberate indiffer-\\nence). The proper focus for commonality is whether determi-\\nnation of the question will yield common answers that could\\nresolve the litigation. Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 349–50. Here, the\\nclass was already narrowed to those who signed the specific\\nform contract at issue here. With such a form contract, almost\\nuniversally signed without negotiation or modification, there\\nis no reason to think that the interpretation of the provision\\nwill vary from one signatory to another, and therefore the is-\\nsue is one that is capable of a common answer and for which\\nthat common question predominates over questions affecting\\nindividual class members. The district court, to conclude oth-\\nerwise, would have to identify why that extrinsic evidence\\nwould lead to another conclusion. But here, although the case\\nwas nearing the trial date, we have no indication as to what\\nevidence the court believed would render class certification\\nimproper. See Bell, 800 F.3d at 377, quoting Szabo v. Bridgeport\\nMachs, Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 676 (7th Cir. 2001) (“[i]f there are\\nmaterial factual disputes that bear on the requirements for\\nclass certification, the court must ‘receive evidence if only by\\n\\f10 No. 18-1409\\n\\naffidavit and resolve the disputes before deciding whether to\\ncertify the class.’”)(emphasis omitted). Absent a more thor-\\nough explanation of its reasoning, we cannot uphold the de-\\ncision decertifying the class.\\n The decision of the district court is VACATED and the\\ncase REMANDED for further proceedings.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":699,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4590205,"string":"4,590,205"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel J. YARBER, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Samuel Yarber"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-02-13"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1469"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Manion, Brennan, Scudder\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1469\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nSAMUEL J. YARBER,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Central District of Illinois.\\n No. 2:17-cr-20007 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 24, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 13, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before MANION, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Police in Champaign, Illinois\\nobtained warrants to search two apartments connected to\\nSamuel Yarber. The searches turned up drugs and handguns\\nand ultimately led to Yarber’s convictions for federal narcotics\\nand firearms offenses. Along the way, Yarber challenged the\\nwarrant to search one of the apartments as unsupported by\\nprobable cause. While the warrant affidavit fell short in one\\nrespect—it did not establish that Yarber lived at the apartment\\n\\f2 No. 18-1469\\n\\nand thus could not support an inference that evidence of his\\ndrug-dealing would be kept there—it nonetheless contained\\nother facts sufficient to establish probable cause. And in any\\nevent the police relied in good faith upon the warrant. On this\\nrecord, then, we affirm.\\n I\\n Law enforcement undertook an investigation after\\nreceiving information from a confidential source that Yarber\\nwas selling drugs in the Champaign-Urbana area. The\\nconfidential source bought cocaine from Yarber on four\\nseparate occasions near the same intersection in Champaign.\\nThe police observed Yarber before and after each transaction.\\nAnd each time, Yarber drove a white Dodge Charger, which\\nwas registered to his girlfriend. Immediately following two of\\nthe controlled buys, Yarber drove to his girlfriend’s apartment\\nin Champaign. The police surveilled the apartment on three\\nadditional occasions, and all three times saw the white Dodge\\nCharger parked in front. On one occasion they saw Yarber exit\\nthe Dodge Charger and go inside the apartment.\\n All of this information was set forth in an affidavit pre-\\nsented to a Champaign County Circuit Court judge in support\\nof the police’s request for a search warrant. The attesting of-\\nficer also stated that, based on his training and experience,\\ndrug dealers often use vehicles registered to someone else to\\nevade detection by law enforcement. The Champaign County\\njudge found that these facts established the requisite probable\\ncause to search the Champaign apartment and issued the war-\\nrant. By its terms, the warrant authorized the police to search\\nfor, among other things, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and sus-\\npected proceeds from drug transactions.\\n\\fNo. 18-1469 3\\n\\n The primary issue in this appeal turns on what the affida-\\nvit did not say. Nowhere did the affidavit state that Yarber\\nlived at the Champaign apartment or even that he stayed\\nthere overnight. To the contrary, it referred to an altogether\\ndifferent apartment—located in Urbana, Illinois—as Yarber’s\\n“residence.” Yarber seized on this omission and moved to\\nsuppress the evidence discovered during the search of the\\nChampaign apartment. He argued that, by establishing no\\nnexus between the drug dealing activities and the apartment,\\nthe affidavit failed to establish probable cause.\\n The district court thought otherwise. The court’s primary\\nreason for finding probable cause was that the police con-\\nnected Yarber and the white Dodge Charger to the apartment\\nand saw him drive there immediately after two of the four\\ncontrolled buys. The district court further observed that the\\nChampaign County judge who issued the search warrant\\ncould have inferred that Yarber kept evidence of his drug\\ndealing in his girlfriend’s apartment to reduce the possibility\\nof connecting him to illegal activity. Alternatively, the district\\ncourt determined that the exception of United States v. Leon\\nwould apply because the police acted in good faith when\\nseeking and executing the warrant. See 468 U.S. 897, 920–22\\n(1984).\\n After the court denied his motion to suppress, Yarber\\npleaded guilty to drug possession with the intent to distrib-\\nute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C), and to possession of a\\nfirearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He proceeded to trial on\\nthe remaining charge of possession of a firearm in furtherance\\nof a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and was con-\\nvicted by a jury. The district court imposed a sentence of 420\\nmonths’ imprisonment.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1469\\n\\n II\\n A\\n In determining the sufficiency of a warrant affidavit, we\\nfocus on the totality of the information presented to the\\nChampaign County judge. See United States v. Peck, 317 F.3d\\n754, 756 (7th Cir. 2003). We afford “great deference” to the\\nprobable cause finding made by the judge who evaluated the\\nwarrant application in the first instance and will uphold that\\ndetermination so long as there is a “substantial basis” for con-\\ncluding “that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdo-\\ning.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983). So, too, have we\\nconsistently held that “probable cause ‘does not require direct\\nevidence linking a crime to a particular place.’” United States\\nv. Zamudio, 909 F.3d 172, 175 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting United\\nStates v. Anderson, 450 F.3d 294, 303 (7th Cir. 2006)). Rather, a\\nwarrant affidavit “need only contain facts that, given the na-\\nture of the evidence sought and the crime alleged, allow for a\\nreasonable inference that there is a fair probability that evi-\\ndence will be found in a particular place.” Id. at 176 (quoting\\nUnited States v. Aljabari, 626 F.3d 940, 944 (7th Cir. 2010)).\\n While this case is far from open and shut, we conclude that\\nthe affidavit provided a sufficient basis for a finding of\\nprobable cause to search the Champaign apartment. Yarber\\nused his girlfriend’s white Dodge Charger for each of the four\\ncontrolled buys. Surveillance also established that the Dodge\\nCharger was parked outside the apartment on three\\noccasions, and that Yarber exited the car and entered the\\napartment on one of those occasions. Finally—and most\\nsignificantly—Yarber drove directly to the apartment after\\ntwo of the four controlled buys. This was sufficient to search\\nthe apartment for the proceeds of those transactions. The\\n\\fNo. 18-1469 5\\n\\nChampaign County judge was entitled to draw the reasonable\\ninference that an experienced drug dealer might maintain\\ncash proceeds from drug sales within the apartment he visited\\nimmediately after the sales—an apartment rented to his\\ngirlfriend and tied to the car he used to conduct his drug\\nsales—rather than on his person or in a car.\\n For its part, the government urges us to rely on a line of\\ncases that permit an inference that “evidence of drug dealing\\nis likely to be found where the dealer lives.” United States v.\\nScott, 731 F.3d 659, 665 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v.\\nSingleton, 125 F.3d 1097, 1102 (7th Cir. 1997)). Yarber lived at\\nthe Champaign apartment, the government’s argument runs,\\nand therefore it was reasonable to infer that evidence of\\nYarber’s drug dealing was likely to be found there. This\\nargument misfires on both the facts and law.\\n As Yarber’s counsel rightly (and very ably) emphasizes,\\nnothing within the affidavit itself gave any indication that\\nYarber lived in the Champaign apartment. Indeed, the\\nopposite is true: the affidavit expressly referred to another\\nproperty, in Urbana, as “[Yarber’s] residence.” The\\ngovernment’s argument—premised on Yarber’s later\\nassertion that he lived at the Champaign apartment—\\ndisregards the well-established tenet that “[w]here, as here,\\nan affidavit is all that was presented to the issuing judge, the\\nwarrant's validity rests on the strength of the affidavit.”\\nAnderson, 450 F.3d at 302–03 (citing Peck, 317 F.3d at 755). Put\\ndifferently, the fact that Yarber may have lived both in an\\napartment in Urbana and at other times with his girlfriend in\\nher Champaign apartment was not before the Champaign\\nCounty judge. On this record, then, the inference that drug\\n\\f6 No. 18-1469\\n\\ndealers keep evidence of drug dealing where they live was\\nunavailable to the police.\\n Instead, our conclusion that probable cause existed relies\\non a combination of other facts: the search warrant expressly\\nauthorized a search for the proceeds of drug sales, Yarber\\nwent directly to his girlfriend’s apartment after two of the\\ncontrolled buys, and additional surveillance tied Yarber to his\\ngirlfriend’s apartment and car.\\n In no way does this mean that any place to which a sus-\\npected drug dealer travels after a drug sale is subject to a\\nsearch. But there is much more here than an isolated visit to\\nsome random apartment after a drug sale. Yarber used his\\ngirlfriend’s vehicle to sell drugs on four separate occasions,\\nand surveillance placed the vehicle at her apartment multiple\\ntimes. When combined with the fact that Yarber went directly\\nto the apartment after two of the controlled buys, the facts\\nwere sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to\\nsearch the apartment for drug proceeds.\\n B\\n In any event, the suppression of the evidence obtained\\nduring the search is not warranted because Leon’s good-faith\\nexception applies here. Under this exception, the fruits of a\\nsearch based on an invalid warrant may be admitted if the of-\\nficers who executed the search relied upon the warrant in\\ngood faith. See United States v. Orozco, 576 F.3d 745, 750 (7th\\nCir. 2009). And an officer’s decision to obtain a warrant cre-\\nates a presumption that the officer acted in good faith. See id.\\n Yarber attempts to rebut this presumption by contending\\nthat the officers should have known that the affidavit was de-\\nficient because it established no connection between the\\n\\fNo. 18-1469 7\\n\\nalleged illegal conduct and the location to be searched. We\\ndisagree. Although silent with respect to whether Yarber lived\\n(at least some of the time) at the Champaign residence—and\\nlacking in that particular respect—the affidavit otherwise pre-\\nsented sufficient facts to tie his drug-dealing activities to the\\napartment. The warrant on the whole was not so deficient in\\nestablishing probable cause as to preclude reasonable, good-\\nfaith reliance on it by the police. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 899.\\n III\\n We owe a final observation in response to Yarber’s argu-\\nment that his drug-trafficking count and felon-in-possession\\ncount should have been grouped for the purposes of compu-\\nting his advisory sentencing range under the Sentencing\\nGuidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c). He acknowledges that his\\nposition is foreclosed by United States v. Sinclair, which held\\nthat a drug-distribution count and a felon-in-possession count\\ncannot be grouped when a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\nis also present, but seeks to preserve it for en banc review or\\nan appeal to the Supreme Court. See 770 F.3d 1148, 1159 (7th\\nCir. 2014). Yarber may consider his argument preserved.\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4367458/\", \"author_raw\": \"SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4590205/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel J. YARBER, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-02-13\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1469\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nSAMUEL J. YARBER,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Central District of Illinois.\n No. 2:17-cr-20007 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED JANUARY 24, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 13, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before MANION, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Police in Champaign, Illinois\nobtained warrants to search two apartments connected to\nSamuel Yarber. The searches turned up drugs and handguns\nand ultimately led to Yarber’s convictions for federal narcotics\nand firearms offenses. Along the way, Yarber challenged the\nwarrant to search one of the apartments as unsupported by\nprobable cause. While the warrant affidavit fell short in one\nrespect—it did not establish that Yarber lived at the apartment\n\f2 No. 18-1469\n\nand thus could not support an inference that evidence of his\ndrug-dealing would be kept there—it nonetheless contained\nother facts sufficient to establish probable cause. And in any\nevent the police relied in good faith upon the warrant. On this\nrecord, then, we affirm.\n I\n Law enforcement undertook an investigation after\nreceiving information from a confidential source that Yarber\nwas selling drugs in the Champaign-Urbana area. The\nconfidential source bought cocaine from Yarber on four\nseparate occasions near the same intersection in Champaign.\nThe police observed Yarber before and after each transaction.\nAnd each time, Yarber drove a white Dodge Charger, which\nwas registered to his girlfriend. Immediately following two of\nthe controlled buys, Yarber drove to his girlfriend’s apartment\nin Champaign. The police surveilled the apartment on three\nadditional occasions, and all three times saw the white Dodge\nCharger parked in front. On one occasion they saw Yarber exit\nthe Dodge Charger and go inside the apartment.\n All of this information was set forth in an affidavit pre-\nsented to a Champaign County Circuit Court judge in support\nof the police’s request for a search warrant. The attesting of-\nficer also stated that, based on his training and experience,\ndrug dealers often use vehicles registered to someone else to\nevade detection by law enforcement. The Champaign County\njudge found that these facts established the requisite probable\ncause to search the Champaign apartment and issued the war-\nrant. By its terms, the warrant authorized the police to search\nfor, among other things, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and sus-\npected proceeds from drug transactions.\n\fNo. 18-1469 3\n\n The primary issue in this appeal turns on what the affida-\nvit did not say. Nowhere did the affidavit state that Yarber\nlived at the Champaign apartment or even that he stayed\nthere overnight. To the contrary, it referred to an altogether\ndifferent apartment—located in Urbana, Illinois—as Yarber’s\n“residence.” Yarber seized on this omission and moved to\nsuppress the evidence discovered during the search of the\nChampaign apartment. He argued that, by establishing no\nnexus between the drug dealing activities and the apartment,\nthe affidavit failed to establish probable cause.\n The district court thought otherwise. The court’s primary\nreason for finding probable cause was that the police con-\nnected Yarber and the white Dodge Charger to the apartment\nand saw him drive there immediately after two of the four\ncontrolled buys. The district court further observed that the\nChampaign County judge who issued the search warrant\ncould have inferred that Yarber kept evidence of his drug\ndealing in his girlfriend’s apartment to reduce the possibility\nof connecting him to illegal activity. Alternatively, the district\ncourt determined that the exception of United States v. Leon\nwould apply because the police acted in good faith when\nseeking and executing the warrant. See 468 U.S. 897, 920–22\n(1984).\n After the court denied his motion to suppress, Yarber\npleaded guilty to drug possession with the intent to distrib-\nute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C), and to possession of a\nfirearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He proceeded to trial on\nthe remaining charge of possession of a firearm in furtherance\nof a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and was con-\nvicted by a jury. The district court imposed a sentence of 420\nmonths’ imprisonment.\n\f4 No. 18-1469\n\n II\n A\n In determining the sufficiency of a warrant affidavit, we\nfocus on the totality of the information presented to the\nChampaign County judge. See United States v. Peck, 317 F.3d\n754, 756 (7th Cir. 2003). We afford “great deference” to the\nprobable cause finding made by the judge who evaluated the\nwarrant application in the first instance and will uphold that\ndetermination so long as there is a “substantial basis” for con-\ncluding “that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdo-\ning.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983). So, too, have we\nconsistently held that “probable cause ‘does not require direct\nevidence linking a crime to a particular place.’” United States\nv. Zamudio, 909 F.3d 172, 175 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting United\nStates v. Anderson, 450 F.3d 294, 303 (7th Cir. 2006)). Rather, a\nwarrant affidavit “need only contain facts that, given the na-\nture of the evidence sought and the crime alleged, allow for a\nreasonable inference that there is a fair probability that evi-\ndence will be found in a particular place.” Id. at 176 (quoting\nUnited States v. Aljabari, 626 F.3d 940, 944 (7th Cir. 2010)).\n While this case is far from open and shut, we conclude that\nthe affidavit provided a sufficient basis for a finding of\nprobable cause to search the Champaign apartment. Yarber\nused his girlfriend’s white Dodge Charger for each of the four\ncontrolled buys. Surveillance also established that the Dodge\nCharger was parked outside the apartment on three\noccasions, and that Yarber exited the car and entered the\napartment on one of those occasions. Finally—and most\nsignificantly—Yarber drove directly to the apartment after\ntwo of the four controlled buys. This was sufficient to search\nthe apartment for the proceeds of those transactions. The\n\fNo. 18-1469 5\n\nChampaign County judge was entitled to draw the reasonable\ninference that an experienced drug dealer might maintain\ncash proceeds from drug sales within the apartment he visited\nimmediately after the sales—an apartment rented to his\ngirlfriend and tied to the car he used to conduct his drug\nsales—rather than on his person or in a car.\n For its part, the government urges us to rely on a line of\ncases that permit an inference that “evidence of drug dealing\nis likely to be found where the dealer lives.” United States v.\nScott, 731 F.3d 659, 665 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v.\nSingleton, 125 F.3d 1097, 1102 (7th Cir. 1997)). Yarber lived at\nthe Champaign apartment, the government’s argument runs,\nand therefore it was reasonable to infer that evidence of\nYarber’s drug dealing was likely to be found there. This\nargument misfires on both the facts and law.\n As Yarber’s counsel rightly (and very ably) emphasizes,\nnothing within the affidavit itself gave any indication that\nYarber lived in the Champaign apartment. Indeed, the\nopposite is true: the affidavit expressly referred to another\nproperty, in Urbana, as “[Yarber’s] residence.” The\ngovernment’s argument—premised on Yarber’s later\nassertion that he lived at the Champaign apartment—\ndisregards the well-established tenet that “[w]here, as here,\nan affidavit is all that was presented to the issuing judge, the\nwarrant's validity rests on the strength of the affidavit.”\nAnderson, 450 F.3d at 302–03 (citing Peck, 317 F.3d at 755). Put\ndifferently, the fact that Yarber may have lived both in an\napartment in Urbana and at other times with his girlfriend in\nher Champaign apartment was not before the Champaign\nCounty judge. On this record, then, the inference that drug\n\f6 No. 18-1469\n\ndealers keep evidence of drug dealing where they live was\nunavailable to the police.\n Instead, our conclusion that probable cause existed relies\non a combination of other facts: the search warrant expressly\nauthorized a search for the proceeds of drug sales, Yarber\nwent directly to his girlfriend’s apartment after two of the\ncontrolled buys, and additional surveillance tied Yarber to his\ngirlfriend’s apartment and car.\n In no way does this mean that any place to which a sus-\npected drug dealer travels after a drug sale is subject to a\nsearch. But there is much more here than an isolated visit to\nsome random apartment after a drug sale. Yarber used his\ngirlfriend’s vehicle to sell drugs on four separate occasions,\nand surveillance placed the vehicle at her apartment multiple\ntimes. When combined with the fact that Yarber went directly\nto the apartment after two of the controlled buys, the facts\nwere sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to\nsearch the apartment for drug proceeds.\n B\n In any event, the suppression of the evidence obtained\nduring the search is not warranted because Leon’s good-faith\nexception applies here. Under this exception, the fruits of a\nsearch based on an invalid warrant may be admitted if the of-\nficers who executed the search relied upon the warrant in\ngood faith. See United States v. Orozco, 576 F.3d 745, 750 (7th\nCir. 2009). And an officer’s decision to obtain a warrant cre-\nates a presumption that the officer acted in good faith. See id.\n Yarber attempts to rebut this presumption by contending\nthat the officers should have known that the affidavit was de-\nficient because it established no connection between the\n\fNo. 18-1469 7\n\nalleged illegal conduct and the location to be searched. We\ndisagree. Although silent with respect to whether Yarber lived\n(at least some of the time) at the Champaign residence—and\nlacking in that particular respect—the affidavit otherwise pre-\nsented sufficient facts to tie his drug-dealing activities to the\napartment. The warrant on the whole was not so deficient in\nestablishing probable cause as to preclude reasonable, good-\nfaith reliance on it by the police. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 899.\n III\n We owe a final observation in response to Yarber’s argu-\nment that his drug-trafficking count and felon-in-possession\ncount should have been grouped for the purposes of compu-\nting his advisory sentencing range under the Sentencing\nGuidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c). He acknowledges that his\nposition is foreclosed by United States v. Sinclair, which held\nthat a drug-distribution count and a felon-in-possession count\ncannot be grouped when a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\nis also present, but seeks to preserve it for en banc review or\nan appeal to the Supreme Court. See 770 F.3d 1148, 1159 (7th\nCir. 2014). Yarber may consider his argument preserved.\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel J. YARBER, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-02-13\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1469\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nSAMUEL J. YARBER,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Central District of Illinois.\\n No. 2:17-cr-20007 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JANUARY 24, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 13, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before MANION, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Police in Champaign, Illinois\\nobtained warrants to search two apartments connected to\\nSamuel Yarber. The searches turned up drugs and handguns\\nand ultimately led to Yarber’s convictions for federal narcotics\\nand firearms offenses. Along the way, Yarber challenged the\\nwarrant to search one of the apartments as unsupported by\\nprobable cause. While the warrant affidavit fell short in one\\nrespect—it did not establish that Yarber lived at the apartment\\n\\f2 No. 18-1469\\n\\nand thus could not support an inference that evidence of his\\ndrug-dealing would be kept there—it nonetheless contained\\nother facts sufficient to establish probable cause. And in any\\nevent the police relied in good faith upon the warrant. On this\\nrecord, then, we affirm.\\n I\\n Law enforcement undertook an investigation after\\nreceiving information from a confidential source that Yarber\\nwas selling drugs in the Champaign-Urbana area. The\\nconfidential source bought cocaine from Yarber on four\\nseparate occasions near the same intersection in Champaign.\\nThe police observed Yarber before and after each transaction.\\nAnd each time, Yarber drove a white Dodge Charger, which\\nwas registered to his girlfriend. Immediately following two of\\nthe controlled buys, Yarber drove to his girlfriend’s apartment\\nin Champaign. The police surveilled the apartment on three\\nadditional occasions, and all three times saw the white Dodge\\nCharger parked in front. On one occasion they saw Yarber exit\\nthe Dodge Charger and go inside the apartment.\\n All of this information was set forth in an affidavit pre-\\nsented to a Champaign County Circuit Court judge in support\\nof the police’s request for a search warrant. The attesting of-\\nficer also stated that, based on his training and experience,\\ndrug dealers often use vehicles registered to someone else to\\nevade detection by law enforcement. The Champaign County\\njudge found that these facts established the requisite probable\\ncause to search the Champaign apartment and issued the war-\\nrant. By its terms, the warrant authorized the police to search\\nfor, among other things, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and sus-\\npected proceeds from drug transactions.\\n\\fNo. 18-1469 3\\n\\n The primary issue in this appeal turns on what the affida-\\nvit did not say. Nowhere did the affidavit state that Yarber\\nlived at the Champaign apartment or even that he stayed\\nthere overnight. To the contrary, it referred to an altogether\\ndifferent apartment—located in Urbana, Illinois—as Yarber’s\\n“residence.” Yarber seized on this omission and moved to\\nsuppress the evidence discovered during the search of the\\nChampaign apartment. He argued that, by establishing no\\nnexus between the drug dealing activities and the apartment,\\nthe affidavit failed to establish probable cause.\\n The district court thought otherwise. The court’s primary\\nreason for finding probable cause was that the police con-\\nnected Yarber and the white Dodge Charger to the apartment\\nand saw him drive there immediately after two of the four\\ncontrolled buys. The district court further observed that the\\nChampaign County judge who issued the search warrant\\ncould have inferred that Yarber kept evidence of his drug\\ndealing in his girlfriend’s apartment to reduce the possibility\\nof connecting him to illegal activity. Alternatively, the district\\ncourt determined that the exception of United States v. Leon\\nwould apply because the police acted in good faith when\\nseeking and executing the warrant. See 468 U.S. 897, 920–22\\n(1984).\\n After the court denied his motion to suppress, Yarber\\npleaded guilty to drug possession with the intent to distrib-\\nute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C), and to possession of a\\nfirearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He proceeded to trial on\\nthe remaining charge of possession of a firearm in furtherance\\nof a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and was con-\\nvicted by a jury. The district court imposed a sentence of 420\\nmonths’ imprisonment.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1469\\n\\n II\\n A\\n In determining the sufficiency of a warrant affidavit, we\\nfocus on the totality of the information presented to the\\nChampaign County judge. See United States v. Peck, 317 F.3d\\n754, 756 (7th Cir. 2003). We afford “great deference” to the\\nprobable cause finding made by the judge who evaluated the\\nwarrant application in the first instance and will uphold that\\ndetermination so long as there is a “substantial basis” for con-\\ncluding “that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdo-\\ning.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983). So, too, have we\\nconsistently held that “probable cause ‘does not require direct\\nevidence linking a crime to a particular place.’” United States\\nv. Zamudio, 909 F.3d 172, 175 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting United\\nStates v. Anderson, 450 F.3d 294, 303 (7th Cir. 2006)). Rather, a\\nwarrant affidavit “need only contain facts that, given the na-\\nture of the evidence sought and the crime alleged, allow for a\\nreasonable inference that there is a fair probability that evi-\\ndence will be found in a particular place.” Id. at 176 (quoting\\nUnited States v. Aljabari, 626 F.3d 940, 944 (7th Cir. 2010)).\\n While this case is far from open and shut, we conclude that\\nthe affidavit provided a sufficient basis for a finding of\\nprobable cause to search the Champaign apartment. Yarber\\nused his girlfriend’s white Dodge Charger for each of the four\\ncontrolled buys. Surveillance also established that the Dodge\\nCharger was parked outside the apartment on three\\noccasions, and that Yarber exited the car and entered the\\napartment on one of those occasions. Finally—and most\\nsignificantly—Yarber drove directly to the apartment after\\ntwo of the four controlled buys. This was sufficient to search\\nthe apartment for the proceeds of those transactions. The\\n\\fNo. 18-1469 5\\n\\nChampaign County judge was entitled to draw the reasonable\\ninference that an experienced drug dealer might maintain\\ncash proceeds from drug sales within the apartment he visited\\nimmediately after the sales—an apartment rented to his\\ngirlfriend and tied to the car he used to conduct his drug\\nsales—rather than on his person or in a car.\\n For its part, the government urges us to rely on a line of\\ncases that permit an inference that “evidence of drug dealing\\nis likely to be found where the dealer lives.” United States v.\\nScott, 731 F.3d 659, 665 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v.\\nSingleton, 125 F.3d 1097, 1102 (7th Cir. 1997)). Yarber lived at\\nthe Champaign apartment, the government’s argument runs,\\nand therefore it was reasonable to infer that evidence of\\nYarber’s drug dealing was likely to be found there. This\\nargument misfires on both the facts and law.\\n As Yarber’s counsel rightly (and very ably) emphasizes,\\nnothing within the affidavit itself gave any indication that\\nYarber lived in the Champaign apartment. Indeed, the\\nopposite is true: the affidavit expressly referred to another\\nproperty, in Urbana, as “[Yarber’s] residence.” The\\ngovernment’s argument—premised on Yarber’s later\\nassertion that he lived at the Champaign apartment—\\ndisregards the well-established tenet that “[w]here, as here,\\nan affidavit is all that was presented to the issuing judge, the\\nwarrant's validity rests on the strength of the affidavit.”\\nAnderson, 450 F.3d at 302–03 (citing Peck, 317 F.3d at 755). Put\\ndifferently, the fact that Yarber may have lived both in an\\napartment in Urbana and at other times with his girlfriend in\\nher Champaign apartment was not before the Champaign\\nCounty judge. On this record, then, the inference that drug\\n\\f6 No. 18-1469\\n\\ndealers keep evidence of drug dealing where they live was\\nunavailable to the police.\\n Instead, our conclusion that probable cause existed relies\\non a combination of other facts: the search warrant expressly\\nauthorized a search for the proceeds of drug sales, Yarber\\nwent directly to his girlfriend’s apartment after two of the\\ncontrolled buys, and additional surveillance tied Yarber to his\\ngirlfriend’s apartment and car.\\n In no way does this mean that any place to which a sus-\\npected drug dealer travels after a drug sale is subject to a\\nsearch. But there is much more here than an isolated visit to\\nsome random apartment after a drug sale. Yarber used his\\ngirlfriend’s vehicle to sell drugs on four separate occasions,\\nand surveillance placed the vehicle at her apartment multiple\\ntimes. When combined with the fact that Yarber went directly\\nto the apartment after two of the controlled buys, the facts\\nwere sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to\\nsearch the apartment for drug proceeds.\\n B\\n In any event, the suppression of the evidence obtained\\nduring the search is not warranted because Leon’s good-faith\\nexception applies here. Under this exception, the fruits of a\\nsearch based on an invalid warrant may be admitted if the of-\\nficers who executed the search relied upon the warrant in\\ngood faith. See United States v. Orozco, 576 F.3d 745, 750 (7th\\nCir. 2009). And an officer’s decision to obtain a warrant cre-\\nates a presumption that the officer acted in good faith. See id.\\n Yarber attempts to rebut this presumption by contending\\nthat the officers should have known that the affidavit was de-\\nficient because it established no connection between the\\n\\fNo. 18-1469 7\\n\\nalleged illegal conduct and the location to be searched. We\\ndisagree. Although silent with respect to whether Yarber lived\\n(at least some of the time) at the Champaign residence—and\\nlacking in that particular respect—the affidavit otherwise pre-\\nsented sufficient facts to tie his drug-dealing activities to the\\napartment. The warrant on the whole was not so deficient in\\nestablishing probable cause as to preclude reasonable, good-\\nfaith reliance on it by the police. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 899.\\n III\\n We owe a final observation in response to Yarber’s argu-\\nment that his drug-trafficking count and felon-in-possession\\ncount should have been grouped for the purposes of compu-\\nting his advisory sentencing range under the Sentencing\\nGuidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c). He acknowledges that his\\nposition is foreclosed by United States v. Sinclair, which held\\nthat a drug-distribution count and a felon-in-possession count\\ncannot be grouped when a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\nis also present, but seeks to preserve it for en banc review or\\nan appeal to the Supreme Court. See 770 F.3d 1148, 1159 (7th\\nCir. 2014). Yarber may consider his argument preserved.\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":6,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":31175,"offset":600,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSJ9.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc3ODQ0NTI3Niwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL2VpdGFucy1wdS9jbC1jb2RpbmctaW5wdXQiLCJleHAiOjE3Nzg0NDg4NzYsImlzcyI6Imh0dHBzOi8vaHVnZ2luZ2ZhY2UuY28ifQ.2REDeS2Almo7btxwLMKk-gSnvihaZb-UMzsV3m6cN-jHzMHHHZmEHje6wY-gWAXQxdiK5YyW2FP8uutEEurdDg","displayUrls":true,"splitSizeSummaries":[{"config":"default","split":"train","numRows":31175,"numBytesParquet":1629387251}]},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":1,"total":1},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
id int64 | name string | name_abbreviation string | decision_date string | docket_number string | court string | casebody string | judge1 string | judge2 string | judge3 string | exactly_three_caps int64 | extra_judges string | judge_designations string | opinions_count int64 | majority_count int64 | dissent_count int64 | concurrence_count int64 | other_count int64 | primary_citation string | reporter string | volume null | resource_url string | precedential_status string | 010combined_count int64 | 020lead_count int64 | 030concurrence_count int64 | 035concurrenceinpart_count int64 | 040dissent_count int64 | year int64 | month int64 | messages list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4,589,528 | Maria Sylvia CARDOSO DE FLORES, Also Known as Maria Flores, Petitioner v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting U. S. Attorney General, Respondent | Maria Cardoso de Flores v. Matthew Whitaker | 2019-02-11 | 17-60744 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Higginson, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-60744 Document: 00514829668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Ap... | KING | HIGGINSON | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589528/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,589,970 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abel DE LEON, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Abel De Leon | 2019-02-12 | 17-50881 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HO, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-50881 Document: 00514832846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n F... | SMITH | BARKSDALE | HO | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "BARKSDALE": ", Circuit", "HO": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589970/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,590,437 | Michael WEASE, Plaintiff - Appellant v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendants - Appellees | Michael Wease v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., et | 2019-02-13 | 17-10574 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Haynes, Higginson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-10574 Document: 00514834421 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUI... | KING | HAYNES | HIGGINSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4590437/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,590,774 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy DeWayne PITTMAN, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Randy Pittman | 2019-02-14 | 18-10465 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Smith, Higginson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-10465 Document: 00514835543 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCU... | HIGGINBOTHAM | SMITH | HIGGINSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4590774/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,590,777 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo NAJERA, Defendant-Appellant | United States v. Eduardo Najera | 2019-02-14 | 17-50802 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jolly, Dennis, Higginson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-50802 Document: 00514835322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE ... | JOLLY | DENNIS | HIGGINSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4590777/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,590,898 | United States v. David Hughes | 2019-02-14 | 18-20015 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-20015 Document: 00514835726 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2019\n\n\n\n\n REVISED February 14, 2019\n\n IN THE UNITE... | REAVLEY | ELROD | WILLETT | 1 | {"REAVLEY": ", Circuit", "ELROD": ", Circuit", "WILLETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4590898/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,590,899 | Springboards to Education, Inc v. Houston ISD, et | 2019-02-14 | 18-20119 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before STEWART, Chief Judge, KING and OWEN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KING, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-20119 Document: 00514836473 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2019\n\n\n\n\n REVISED February 14, 2019\n\n IN THE ... | STEWART | KING | OWEN | 1 | {"STEWART": ", Chief", "KING": ", Circuit", "OWEN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4590899/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,590,901 | Delbert JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeffrey HALSTEAD, Individually, Defendant-Appellant | Delbert Johnson v. City of Fort Worth | 2019-02-14 | 17-10223 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Dennis, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-10223 Document: 00514836033 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | HIGGINBOTHAM | DENNIS | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4590901/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,591,302 | Flora NALL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Nall, Substituted in Place and Stead of Michael Nall, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. | Michael Nall v. BNSF Railway Company | 2019-02-15 | 17-20113 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "James, Elrod, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888021/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinio... | JAMES | ELROD | COSTA | 1 | {} | 6 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4591302/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,591,405 | XITRONIX CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KLA-TENCOR CORPORATION, Doing Business as KLA-Tencor, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee | Xitronix Corporation v. KLA-Tencor Corporation | 2019-02-15 | 18-50114 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jolly, Dennis, Higginson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-50114 Document: 00514838084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT... | JOLLY | DENNIS | HIGGINSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4591405/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,591,407 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael A. LORD; Randall B. Lord, Defendants-Appellants | United States v. Michael Lord | 2019-02-15 | 17-30486 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Stewart, Dennis, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "CARL E. STEWART, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-30486 Document: 00514837233 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n\... | STEWART | DENNIS | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4591407/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,591,410 | Obie D. WEATHERS, III, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee | Obie Weathers, III v. Lorie Davis, Director | 2019-02-15 | 15-70030 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Jones, Haynes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 15-70030 Document: 00514838227 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | KING | JONES | HAYNES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4591410/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,591,411 | Kevin WALLACE, Plaintiff - Appellant v. ANDEAVOR CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee | Kevin Wallace v. Tesoro Corporation | 2019-02-15 | 17-50927 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jones, Clement, Southwick", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-50927 Document: 00514837986 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT... | JONES | CLEMENT | SOUTHWICK | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4591411/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,591,565 | Eunice J. WINZER, Individually and on Behalf of the Statutory Beneficiaries of Gabriel A. Winzer; Sohelia Winzer; Henry Winzer, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. KAUFMAN COUNTY; Bill Cuellar; Garry Huddleston; Matthew Hinds, Defendants-Appellees Henry Andree Winzer, Also Known as Henry A. Winzer, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Matthew ... | Eunice Winzer v. Kaufman County | 2019-02-18 | 16-11482 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Dennis, Clement, Graves", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 16-11482 Document: 00514838622 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of App... | DENNIS | CLEMENT | GRAVES | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4591565/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,591,566 | Charles Victor THOMPSON, Petitioner - Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent - Appellee | Charles Thompson v. Lorie Davis, Director | 2019-02-18 | 17-70008 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Haynes, Graves", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-70008 Document: 00514838385 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH... | HIGGINBOTHAM | HAYNES | GRAVES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4591566/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,591,850 | EXPRESS OIL CHANGE, L.L.C.; TE, L.L.C., Doing Business as Tire Engineers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF LICENSURE FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS; Terrell Temple, in Their Individual and Official Capacities as the Members of the Mississippi Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers & Surveyo... | Express Oil Change, L.L.C. v. Miss. Bd. of Licensure for Prof'l Eng'rs & Surveyors | 2019-02-19 | 18-60144 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HO, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-60144 Document: 00514841512 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n F... | SMITH | BARKSDALE | HO | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "BARKSDALE": ", Circuit", "HO": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4591850/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,591,851 | Bruce M. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rogelio VALDEZ, in His Individual and Official Capacities, Defendant-Appellant | Bruce Anderson v. State of Texas | 2019-02-19 | 17-41243 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Graves, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n United States Court of Appeals\... | HIGGINBOTHAM | GRAVES | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4591851/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,592,369 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Viju MATHEW, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Viju Mathew | 2019-02-21 | 17-10863 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Smith, Duncan, Engelhardt", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-10863 Document: 00514843839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n... | SMITH | DUNCAN | ENGELHARDT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4592369/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,443,891 | IN RE: JPMORGAN CHASE & COMPANY | In re JPMorgan Chase & Co. | 2019-02-21 | No. 18-20825 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Duncan, Higginson, Smith", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415321/", "author_raw": ""}]} | DUNCAN | HIGGINSON | SMITH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443891/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,443,892 | Teresa Ann JOHNSON v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C. Wells Fargo Bank National Association, as Trustee for Park Place Securities Incorporated, Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-WLLI | Johnson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. | 2019-02-21 | No. 18-10257 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Costa, Higginson, King", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415322/", "author_raw": ""}]} | COSTA | HIGGINSON | KING | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443892/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,593,083 | Teresa Johnson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., et | 2019-02-22 | 18-10257 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before KING, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-10257 Document: 00514845793 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR ... | KING | HIGGINSON | COSTA | 1 | {"KING": ", Circuit", "HIGGINSON": ", Circuit", "COSTA": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4593083/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,593,086 | In Re: JPMorgan Chase & Company | 2019-02-22 | 18-20825 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-20825 Document: 00514844999 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | SMITH | HIGGINSON | DUNCAN | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "HIGGINSON": ", Circuit", "DUNCAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4593086/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,593,293 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Saul GARCIA-SANCHEZ, Also Known as Enrique Bardales-Montano, Defendant-Appellant | United States v. Saul Garcia-Sanchez | 2019-02-22 | 18-40088 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Stewart, King, Owen", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "CARL E. STEWART, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n\n ... | STEWART | KING | OWEN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4593293/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,593,296 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. John Martin CABELLO, Also Known as Chinaman, Defendant - Appellant. | United States v. John Cabello | 2019-02-22 | 18-10001 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and HO, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-10001 Document: 00514847546 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCU... | HIGGINBOTHAM | ELROD | HO | 1 | {"HIGGINBOTHAM": ", Circuit", "ELROD": ", Circuit", "HO": ", Circuit"} | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4593296/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,593,299 | In the MATTER OF: LIVING BENEFITS ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Debtor Living Benefits Asset Management, L.L.C., Appellant v. Kestrel Aircraft Company, Inc Orporated, Appellee | Living Benefits Asset Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Kestrel Aircraft Co. (In Re Living Benefits Asset Mgmt., L.L.C.) | 2019-02-22 | 18-10510 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Higginson, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KING, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-10510 Document: 00514847021 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH ... | KING | HIGGINSON | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4593299/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,594,281 | United States v. Alan Gomez Gomez | 2019-02-26 | 17-20526 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before CLEMENT, HIGGINSON, and HO, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JAMES C. HO, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n United States Cou... | CLEMENT | HIGGINSON | HO | 1 | {"CLEMENT": ", Circuit", "HIGGINSON": ", Circuit", "HO": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4594281/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,594,282 | MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee Cross-Appellant v. PETROLEUM SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellant Cross-Appellee | Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Petroleum Solutions, Inc. | 2019-02-26 | 17-20652 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jones, Haynes, Oldham", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "HAYNES, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-20652 Document: 00514851963 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | JONES | HAYNES | OLDHAM | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4594282/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,595,068 | United States v. Martin Araiza-Jacobo | 2019-02-28 | 17-40958 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STUART KYLE DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-40958 Document: 00514854945 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | SMITH | DUNCAN | ENGELHARDT | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "DUNCAN": ", Circuit", "ENGELHARDT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4595068/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,595,267 | William PARRISH; Joshua D. Ellestad; Mario Alfaro; Thomas J. Beckett; Matthew S. Robbins, Plaintiffs - Appellees v. PREMIER DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, L.P., Defendant - Appellant | Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P. | 2019-02-28 | 17-51089 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HO, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-51089 Document: 00514856215 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | SMITH | BARKSDALE | HO | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "BARKSDALE": ", Circuit", "HO": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4595267/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,595,268 | LOUISIANA REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS BOARD, Petitioner v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent | La. Real Estate Appraisers Bd. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n | 2019-02-28 | 18-60291 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Higginson, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-60291 Document: 00514855761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | KING | HIGGINSON | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4595268/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,443,907 | United States v. Martin ARAIZA-JACOBO | United States v. Araiza-Jacobo | 2019-02-28 | No. 17-40958 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Duncan, Engelhardt, Smith", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415338/", "author_raw": ""}]} | DUNCAN | ENGELHARDT | SMITH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443907/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,586,672 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dalen KING, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Dalen King | 2019-02-01 | 18-3416/3417 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Clay, McKEAGUE, White", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "McKEAGUE", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0014p.06\n\n UNITE... | CLAY | MCKEAGUE | WHITE | 1 | {"McKEAGUE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4586672/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,587,477 | Darrell Rashard EWING, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Connie HORTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellant. | Darrell Ewing v. Connie Horton | 2019-02-05 | 17-2485 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: SILER, MOORE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Linus Banghart-Linn, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ROGERS, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLI... | SILER | MOORE | ROGERS | 1 | {"SILER": ", Circuit", "MOORE": ", Circuit", "ROGERS": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587477/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,587,846 | Darrell Ewing v. Connie Horton | 2019-02-05 | 17-2485 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: SILER, MOORE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Linus Banghart-Linn, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ROGERS, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLI... | SILER | MOORE | ROGERS | 1 | {"SILER": ", Circuit", "MOORE": ", Circuit", "ROGERS": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587846/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,587,844 | Imogene SHEPHERD, Widow of Tramble Shepherd, Petitioner, v. INCOAL, INC.; American Business & Mercantile Insurance Mutual, Inc. ; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents. | Imogene Shepherd v. Incoal, Inc. | 2019-02-06 | 17-4313 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Daughtrey, Gibbons, Griffin", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0016p.... | DAUGHTREY | GIBBONS | GRIFFIN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587844/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,588,720 | Eduardo JACOBS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymon ALAM and Dave Weinman (18-1124); Damon Kimbrough (17-2159), Defendants-Appellants. | Eduardo Jacobs v. Raymon Alam | 2019-02-08 | 17-2159/18-1124 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Daughtrey, Gibbons, Griffin", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0017p.06\n\n ... | DAUGHTREY | GIBBONS | GRIFFIN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588720/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,589,133 | Eduardo Jacobs v. Raymon Alam | 2019-02-08 | 18-1124 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: DAUGHTREY, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Na... | DAUGHTREY | GIBBONS | GRIFFIN | 1 | {"DAUGHTREY": ", Circuit", "GIBBONS": ", Circuit", "GRIFFIN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589133/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,589,790 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard PARRISH, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Richard Parrish | 2019-02-12 | 18-1178 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Larsen, Keith", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9887994/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/988... | LARSEN | KEITH | LARSEN | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589790/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,589,793 | R. Alexander ACOSTA, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. OFF DUTY POLICE SERVICES, INC. ; Darrell Spurgeon; Bonnie Spurgeon, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. | R. Alexander Acosta v. Off Duty Police Servs. | 2019-02-12 | 17-5995/6071 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Guy, White, Stranch", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0019p.06\n\n ... | GUY | WHITE | STRANCH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589793/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,589,795 | James BENJAMIN, AS TRUSTEE OF the REBEKAH C. BENJAMIN TRUST; Rebekah C. Benjamin Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Jones Family Trust; Bobby Jones, Trustee; Sylvia Jones, Trustee, Intervenors-Appellants, v. John STEMPLE and Janet Santos, in Their Official and Individual Capacities, Defendants-Appellees. | James Benjamin v. John Stemple | 2019-02-12 | 18-1736 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Sutton, Griffin, Larsen", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUTTON, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0020p.06\n\n ... | SUTTON | GRIFFIN | LARSEN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589795/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,590,686 | Yaqob Tafan THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph P. MEKO, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. | Yaqob Thomas v. Joseph Meko | 2019-02-14 | 17-5824 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Cole, Griffin, Kethledge", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0021p.06\n\n ... | COLE | GRIFFIN | KETHLEDGE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4590686/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,590,689 | Derrick MAYE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul KLEE, Et Al., Defendants, Joseph Serafin ; William Taylor, Defendants-Appellants. | Derrick Maye v. Paul Klee | 2019-02-14 | 18-1460 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Cole, Griffin, Kethledge", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COLE, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0022p.06\n\n ... | COLE | GRIFFIN | KETHLEDGE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4590689/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,591,289 | Derrick Maye v. Paul Klee | 2019-02-14 | 18-1460 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: COLE, Chief Judge; GRIFFIN and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COLE, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n ... | COLE | GRIFFIN | KETHLEDGE | 1 | {"COLE": ", Chief", "GRIFFIN": ", Circuit", "KETHLEDGE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4591289/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,591,288 | Michele L. RAFFERTY, Plaintiff, Katie L. Sherman, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO, Et Al., Defendants, Charles E. Drennen, Individually and in His Professional Capacity, Defendant-Appellant. | Michele Rafferty v. Trumbull Cty., Ohio | 2019-02-15 | 17-4223 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Clay, McKeague, Bush", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "CLAY, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0023p.06\n\n ... | CLAY | MCKEAGUE | BUSH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4591288/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,592,612 | Bobbie M. SMITH, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TIPTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee. | Bobbie M. Smith v. Tipton Cty. Bd. of Educ. | 2019-02-21 | 18-5426 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Moore, Gibbons, Cook", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0025p.06\n\n ... | MOORE | GIBBONS | COOK | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4592612/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,592,613 | AIRGAS USA, LLC, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. | Airgas USA, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. | 2019-02-21 | 18-1686/1771 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Gibbons, Rogers, Stranch", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0024p.06\n\n ... | GIBBONS | ROGERS | STRANCH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4592613/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,593,145 | NICOLE GAS PRODUCTION, LTD., Debtor. James A. Lowe ; Curtland H. Caffey; S. Brewster Randall, II; Robert C. Sanders, Appellants, v. Brenda K. Bowers, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Nicole Gas Production, Ltd., Appellee. | Lowe v. Bowers (In Re Nicole Gas Prod., Ltd.) | 2019-02-22 | 18-3301 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Merritt, Cook, Larsen", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "MERRITT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0026p.06\n\n ... | MERRITT | COOK | LARSEN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4593145/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,593,530 | James KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Et Al., Defendants, Douglas Brownback; Todd Allen, Defendants-Appellees. | James King v. United States | 2019-02-25 | 17-2101 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Clay, Rogers", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888056/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888... | CLAY | ROGERS | CLAY | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4593530/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,593,927 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John MADDUX, Jr. (16-6368); Christina Carman (16-6370); Julie Coscia (16-6371); Michael E. Smith (16-6726), Defendants-Appellants. | United States v. Michael E. Smith | 2019-02-26 | 16-6726 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Suhrheinrich, Gibbons, Kethledge", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0029p.06\n\n ... | SUHRHEINRICH | GIBBONS | KETHLEDGE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4593927/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,593,931 | In RE: GREEKTOWN HOLDINGS, LLC, Debtor. Buchwald Capital Advisors, LLC, Solely in Its Capacity as Litigation Trustee to the Greektown Litigation Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians; Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority, Defendants-Appellees. | Buchwald Capital Advisors, LLC v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (In Re Greektown Holdings, LLC) | 2019-02-26 | 18-1165; 18-1166 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Clay, Zouhary", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888068/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/988... | CLAY | ZOUHARY | CLAY | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4593931/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,594,500 | Portia A. BOULGER, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. James H. WOODS, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. | Portia Boulger v. James Woods | 2019-02-27 | 18-3170/3220 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: COLE, Chief Judge; WHITE and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COLE, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n ... | COLE | WHITE | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {"COLE": ", Chief", "WHITE": ", Circuit", "NALBANDIAN": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4594500/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,594,898 | Gualterio Lazaro SANTOS-SANTOS, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. | Gualterio Santos-Santos v. William P. Barr | 2019-02-28 | 18-3515 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Siler, Cook, Bush", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SILER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0031p.06\n\n ... | SILER | COOK | BUSH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4594898/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,586,673 | Mack Sims v. William Hyatte | 2019-02-01 | 18-1573 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-1573\n\nMACK A. SIMS,\n ... | BAUER | HAMILTON | BARRETT | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4586673/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,586,732 | Mack Sims v. William Hyatte | 2019-02-01 | 18-1573 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-1573\n\nMACK A. SIMS,\n ... | BAUER | HAMILTON | BARRETT | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4586732/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,586,733 | Jeffery A. KOPPLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WISCONSIN CENTRAL LIMITED, D/B/A CN, Defendant-Appellee. | Jeffery Kopplin v. Wisconsin Central Limited | 2019-02-01 | 17-3602 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Sykes, Barrett, Eve", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3602\nJEFFERY A. KOPPLIN,\n ... | SYKES | BARRETT | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4586733/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,586,751 | Jeffery Kopplin v. Wisconsin Central Limited | 2019-02-01 | 17-3602 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before SYKES, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3602\nJEFFERY A. KOPPLIN,... | SYKES | BARRETT | ST EVE | 1 | {"SYKES": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4586751/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,587,162 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Artez BREWER, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Artez Brewer | 2019-02-04 | 18-2035 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2035\nUNITED STATES OF... | BAUER | ROVNER | ST EVE | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587162/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,587,268 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis A. FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Luis Fernandez | 2019-02-04 | 17-3421 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Manion, Rovner", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17-3421\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plain... | FLAUM | MANION | ROVNER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587268/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,587,269 | United States v. Artez Brewer | 2019-02-04 | 18-2035 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2035\nUNITED STATES OF... | BAUER | ROVNER | ST EVE | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587269/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,587,322 | United States v. Luis Fernandez | 2019-02-04 | 17-3421 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17-3421\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | FLAUM | MANION | ROVNER | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587322/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,587,569 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josue VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Josue Vargas | 2019-02-05 | 18-1250 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Wood, Easterbrook, Kanne", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-1250\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | WOOD | EASTERBROOK | KANNE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587569/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,587,570 | Jeryme MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Minh SCHOTT, Tim Veath, and Hudson Maynard, Defendants-Appellees. | Jeryme Morgan v. Minh Schott | 2019-02-05 | 16-2384 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Kanne, Sykes, Eve", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 16-2384\nJERYME MORGAN,\n ... | KANNE | SYKES | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587570/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,587,668 | United States v. Josue Vargas | 2019-02-05 | 18-1250 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and KANNE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-... | WOOD | EASTERBROOK | KANNE | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587668/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,587,669 | Jeryme Morgan v. Minh Schott | 2019-02-05 | 16-2384 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, SYKES, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 16-2384\nJERYME MORGAN,\n ... | KANNE | SYKES | ST EVE | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4587669/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,588,108 | JACKSON COUNTY BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mathew R. DUSABLON, Defendant-Appellant. | Jackson County Bank v. Mathew DuSablon | 2019-02-06 | 18-2809 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-28... | WOOD | BRENNAN | ST EVE | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "BRENNAN": ", Cir cuit", "ST EVE": ", Cir cuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588108/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,588,130 | Jackson County Bank v. Mathew DuSablon | 2019-02-06 | 18-2809 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-28... | WOOD | BRENNAN | ST EVE | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "BRENNAN": ", Cir cuit", "ST EVE": ", Cir cuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588130/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,588,161 | Jackson County Bank v. Mathew DuSablon | 2019-02-06 | 18-2809 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-28... | WOOD | BRENNAN | ST EVE | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "BRENNAN": ", Cir cuit", "ST EVE": ", Cir cuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588161/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,588,398 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dandre MOODY, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Dandre Moody | 2019-02-07 | 18-1837 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Wood, Ripple, Barrett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BARRETT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1837\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | WOOD | RIPPLE | BARRETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588398/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,588,427 | United States v. Dandre Moody | 2019-02-07 | 18-1837 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BARRETT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1837... | WOOD | RIPPLE | BARRETT | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588427/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,588,441 | United States v. Travis Vaccaro | 2019-02-07 | 18-1753 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BARRETT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 18‐1... | WOOD | RIPPLE | BARRETT | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588441/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,588,443 | United States v. Dandre Moody | 2019-02-07 | 18-1837 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BARRETT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1837... | WOOD | RIPPLE | BARRETT | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588443/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,588,515 | United States v. Travis Vaccaro | 2019-02-07 | 18-1753 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BARRETT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 18‐1... | WOOD | RIPPLE | BARRETT | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588515/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,588,517 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anastacia v. MACLIN, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Anastacia Maclin | 2019-02-07 | 18-2158 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Bauer, Kanne, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2158\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-... | BAUER | KANNE | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588517/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,588,518 | Diane RHONE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC, Defendant-Appellant. | Diane Rhone v. Medical Business Bureau, LLC | 2019-02-07 | 17-3408 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Wood, Easterbrook, Rovner", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3408\nDIANE RHONE,\n ... | WOOD | EASTERBROOK | ROVNER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588518/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,588,617 | United States v. Anastacia Maclin | 2019-02-07 | 18-2158 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, KANNE, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2158\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | BAUER | KANNE | BRENNAN | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588617/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,588,618 | Diane Rhone v. Medical Business Bureau, LLC | 2019-02-07 | 17-3408 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3... | WOOD | EASTERBROOK | ROVNER | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588618/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
8,443,875 | United States v. Travis S. VACCARO | United States v. Vaccaro | 2019-02-07 | No. 18-1753 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Barrett, Ripple, Wood", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415304/", "author_raw": ""}]} | BARRETT | RIPPLE | WOOD | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443875/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,588,867 | Vipul B. PATEL, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ZILLOW, INC., and Zillow Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. | Vipul Patel v. Zillow, Inc. | 2019-02-08 | 18-2130 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Bauer, Easterbrook, Scudder", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-2130\nVIPUL B. PATEL, et al.,\n ... | BAUER | EASTERBROOK | SCUDDER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588867/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,588,978 | Vipul Patel v. Zillow, Inc. | 2019-02-08 | 18-2130 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-2130\nVIPU... | BAUER | EASTERBROOK | SCUDDER | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588978/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,588,979 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben DELHORNO, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Ruben Delhorno | 2019-02-08 | 18-1707 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Kanne, Hamilton, Eve", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1707\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | KANNE | HAMILTON | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588979/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,588,980 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hiram Omar GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Hiram Graham | 2019-02-08 | 18-2156 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2156\nUNITED STA... | WOOD | KANNE | ST EVE | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "KANNE": ", Cir cuit", "ST EVE": ", Cir cuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4588980/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,589,047 | United States v. Ruben Delhorno | 2019-02-08 | 18-1707 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1707\nUNITED STATES ... | KANNE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589047/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,589,048 | United States v. Hiram Graham | 2019-02-08 | 18-2156 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2156\nUNITED STA... | WOOD | KANNE | ST EVE | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "KANNE": ", Cir cuit", "ST EVE": ", Cir cuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589048/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,589,049 | Ronnie L. Winsted, Jr. v. Nancy A. Berryhill | 2019-02-08 | 18-2228 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before MANION, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BRENNAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 18‐2228 \nRONNIE L... | MANION | BRENNAN | SCUDDER | 1 | {"MANION": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589049/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,589,050 | Linda Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital | 2019-02-08 | 17-1469 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐1469 \nLINDA ... | EASTERBROOK | ROVNER | HAMILTON | 1 | {"EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589050/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,589,051 | Joseph MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael DOWNEY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Joseph Miller v. Michael Downey | 2019-02-08 | 17-1507 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Rovner, Scudder", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SCUDDER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-1507\nJOSEPH MILLER,\n ... | FLAUM | ROVNER | SCUDDER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589051/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,589,154 | Ronnie L. Winsted, Jr. v. Nancy A. Berryhill | 2019-02-08 | 18-2228 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before MANION, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BRENNAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 18‐2228 \nRONNIE L... | MANION | BRENNAN | SCUDDER | 1 | {"MANION": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589154/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,589,155 | Linda Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital | 2019-02-08 | 17-1469 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐1469 \nLINDA ... | EASTERBROOK | ROVNER | HAMILTON | 1 | {"EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589155/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,589,156 | Joseph Miller v. Michael Downey | 2019-02-08 | 17-1507 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, ROVNER, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SCUDDER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-1507\nJOSEPH MILLER,\... | FLAUM | ROVNER | SCUDDER | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589156/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
8,443,876 | Ronnie L. WINSTED, Jr. v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security | Winsted v. Berryhill | 2019-02-08 | No. 18-2228 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Brennan, Manion, Scudder", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415305/", "author_raw": ""}]} | BRENNAN | MANION | SCUDDER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443876/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,443,877 | Linda REED v. COLUMBIA ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL | Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hosp. | 2019-02-08 | No. 17-1469 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Easterbrook, Hamilton, Rovner", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415306/", "author_raw": ""}]} | EASTERBROOK | HAMILTON | ROVNER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443877/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,443,996 | Ronnie L. WINSTED, Jr. v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security | Winsted v. Berryhill | 2019-02-08 | No. 18-2228 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Brennan, Manion, Scudder", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415430/", "author_raw": ""}]} | BRENNAN | MANION | SCUDDER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443996/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,589,749 | Danny J. RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. | Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill | 2019-02-12 | 18-2229 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2229\nDANNY J. RAY,... | WOOD | KANNE | ST EVE | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589749/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,589,800 | Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill | 2019-02-12 | 18-2229 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2229\nDANNY J. RAY,... | WOOD | KANNE | ST EVE | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589800/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,589,922 | Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill | 2019-02-12 | 18-2229 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2229\nDANNY J. RAY,... | WOOD | KANNE | ST EVE | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589922/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,589,938 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward BOLIAUX, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Edward Boliaux | 2019-02-12 | 18-1322 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Wood, Easterbrook, Eve", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-1322\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | WOOD | EASTERBROOK | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589938/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,589,939 | Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill | 2019-02-12 | 18-2229 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2229\nDANNY J. RAY,... | WOOD | KANNE | ST EVE | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589939/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,589,994 | United States v. Edward Boliaux | 2019-02-12 | 18-1322 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo.... | WOOD | EASTERBROOK | ST EVE | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4589994/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,590,160 | RED BARN MOTORS, INC., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee. | Red Barn Motors, Inc. v. NextGear Capital, Inc. | 2019-02-13 | 18-1409 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Wood, Rovner, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1409\nRED BARN MOTORS, INC., et al.,\n ... | WOOD | ROVNER | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4590160/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,590,205 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel J. YARBER, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Samuel Yarber | 2019-02-13 | 18-1469 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Manion, Brennan, Scudder", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SCUDDER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1469\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | MANION | BRENNAN | SCUDDER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4590205/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 2 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.